***** 








































v^* 









, o 



» 










\/ 













1 •lilr* > v ••••- 








/•cr 



*°* 



°o. 




v oV * 



'oK' 



v^O* 








' %• 



4> v t* 





A*^ 



W .vsflfek \/ •<**• 



>bV* & ^'- "^.^ V> 





» V ^ -J 








a* v< v 










v^V v™V v*™V ' 









ENGLAND'S PROGRESS 



1793-1921 



B. W. ARNOLD, Jr., A.M., Ph.D. 

Professor of History Randolph-Macon Woman's College 




BOSTON 
RICHARD G. BADGER 

THE GORHAM PRESS 



Copyright, 1922, by Richard G. Badger 
All Rights Reserved 






Made in the United States of America 
Press of J. J. Little & Ives Company, New York, U. S. A. 

DEC .18 72 

©C1A692445 



To 
MY WIFE 



PREFACE 

This brief survey of England's Progress during the 
past century is based on secondary sources. A list of 
the books used is given at the end of the compilation, 
and indebtedness to their authors is hereby acknowledged. 
References are given at the close of each chapter. The 
hope is entertained that the reading of this sketch may 
lead some at least to look in the larger volumes for fuller 
light on the subjects treated here. 

B. W. Arnold, Jr. 
Lynchburg, Va. 
June 8, 1922. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. Eighteenth Century England .... 9 

II. England and the French Revolution, 1793- 

1815 22 

III. Era of Reaction and Repression, 181 5-1 821 33 

IV. Strengthening Liberalism and Parliamen- 

tary Reform, 1821-1832 49 

V. Progressive Legislation, 1 833-1 845 ... 64 

VI. Foreign Policy under Palmerston ... 85 

VII. The Ministry of Russell, 1 865-1 866 . . 97 

VIII. The Derby-Disraeli Ministry, 1866- 1868 . 104 

IX. The First Ministry of Gladstone, 1 868-1874 115 

X. Disraeli's Second Ministry, 1874-1880 . . 136 

XL Gladstone's Second Ministry, i 880-1 885 . 145 

XII. Salisbury's First Ministry, 1 885-1 886, and 
Gladstone's Third Ministry, February- 
July, 1886 161 

XIII. Salisbury's Second Ministry, 1 886-1 892, and 

Gladstone's Fourth Ministry, 1 892-1 894 167 

XIV. The Ministries of Rosebery (i 894-1 895), 

Salisbury (1895-1902) and Balfour (1902- 

1905) 182 

5 



6 Contents 

CHAPTER PAGB 

XV. The Ministries of Campbell-Bannerman 

(1906-1908) AND OF ASQUITH UP TO 1914 . 20O 

XVI. Causes of the World War , 224 

XVII. England's Entrance into and Share in the 
Great War. Asquith, 1914-1916. Lloyd 
George, 1916-1921 236 

XVIII. Legislative By-Products of the War and 

Recent Tendencies 254 

Bibliography 265 

Index 267 



ENGLAND'S PROGRESS 



ENGLAND'S PROGRESS 

CHAPTER I 

EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ENGLAND 

Students of this period, though differing in their esti- 
mate of the age as a whole, some making most of its 
brighter, others of its darker features, still are well 
agreed in their interpretations of several phases of its 
life. 

The century was certainly marked by a display of 
strong intellectual vigor. The Age of Anne, 1702-17 14, 
has been called the Augustan age of English literature. 1 
Pope, Swift, Addison and Defoe knew how to make their 
pens useful to the politicians who had patronage to dis- 
tribute. The Government in Anne's time, as in the time 
of the Caesars, took pride in lavishing lucrative ap- 
pointments and honors upon men of letters. In the 
"Spectator," the "Tattler," the "Guardian," and the 
"Craftsman" may be recognized the earlier forms of the 
modern magazine, newspaper and political pamphlet. 
There appeared in this century the famous essayist, 
Samuel Johnson; the play-writers Goldsmith, Sheridan, 
Foote, and Howe; the novelists Henry Fielding, Smol- 
lett, Samuel Richardson, Fanny Burney, and Maria Edge- 
worth; the poets Edward Young and James Thomson, 
the author of "Rule Britannia"; the noted lyricist and 

9 



io England's Progress 

satirist, Robert Burns; the hymn-writers Watts, Wesley, 
Fletcher and Toplady; the moral and political philoso- 
phers Samuel Clarke, Joseph Butler, Locke, Paley, Jer- 
emy Bentham and Blackstone; the classical scholar 
Richard Bentley; the scientists John Ray, the zoologist, 
Joseph Priestley, the discoverer of oxygen, Joseph Black, 
the chemist of quantitative analysis fame, and Edmund 
Halley who first calculated the comet's orbit; the actors 
Garrick, Macklin, and Kemble; the economists Adam 
Smith, Tucker, and Malthus; the historians David 
Hume and Gibbons; the architects William Chambers, 
Wyatt, and Robert Taylor; the genius William Hogarth, 
whose engravings and paintings enable one to see the 
London life of his day; the painters of historical pic- 
tures West, Barry, and Copley; the famous portrait 
and landscape painters Reynolds, Gainsborough, Rom- 
ney, Wilson and Barrett; the inventors Kay who devised 
the flying-shuttle, Hargreaves the "Spinning Jenny," 
Arkwright the "spinning frame," Crompton the "spin- 
ning mule" which combined the principles of former 
machines, Cartwright the power loom, James Watt the 
steam-engine, and Josiah Wedgwood, who devised a new 
superior earthenware well suited for busts, medallions, 
and cameos, as well as for pottery. In the latter part 
of the century the English theatre was encouraged and 
elevated, the Encyclopaedia Britannica completed, cir- 
culating libraries first established, book-clubs formed 
among the more fashionable classes, and a children's 
literature produced. 

'Tis true that during the reigns of George I and 
George II, 17 14-1760, and especially under Robert Wal- 
pole's administration which covers most of this period, 
"knights of the pen" were not favored by the Govern- 



Eighteenth Century England n 

ment so much as in the reign of Anne; and since the read- 
ing public was not large, owing in part to the fact that 
books as yet were costly, authors did not prosper. But 
nevertheless, writers multiplied — minor bards, pam- 
phleteers, and reviewers. They prepared sermons for 
lazy and incompetent parsons; 2 they translated and an- 
notated classical works for bookdealers; they wrote pre- 
faces, prologues, dedications for books, computed in- 
dexes and almanacs, and contributed poems, advertise- 
ments, and puffs to the papers. The literary output was 
plentiful, though much of it was inferior in quality, many 
of the novels of the circulating libraries being mere trash 
full of maudlin sentimentality and of sexual improprie- 
ties, revolting to a sound moral sense. 

The age was militant and combative in spirit, full of 
action. Throughout well nigh the entire period the 
English naval or military forces were engaged in war- 
fare with some foreign power. The public purse was 
being constantly drained for military enterprises, need- 
less or wise; reports of brilliant victories and glorious 
actions by land or sea were frequent, warming the na- 
tion's blood and exalting martial pride; wars and rumors 
of wars filled the public mind. In 1703 the English 
army under Marlborough with Austria's aid was at- 
tempting to wrest the Spanish dominions from Philip. 
In 1704 the French and Bavarians were beaten by Marl- 
borough at Blenheim, and in the same year Gibraltar was 
captured, and the city of Barcelona in Spain taken. 
"Marlborough defeated in 1706 Villeroi at Ramil- 
lies in Belgium, in 1708 Marshall Vendome at Oude- 
narde on the Scheldt, and in 1709 Villars at Malplaquet 
in Flanders." 3 In 17 18 and again in 1739 England was 
at war with Spain. In 1742 the nation became involved in 



12 England* s Progress 

the War of the Austrian Succession, and in 1743 at Det- 
tingen defeated the French and Bavarians. In 1756 was 
commenced the seven-year struggle, in which England 
won Canada from the French, and laid the foundation 
of the British Empire in India. In 1757 Robert Clive 
recaptured Calcutta and won the battle of Plassey. In 
1 76 1 Sir Eyre Coote destroyed the French power in 
India by capturing Pondicherry, and in Quiberon Bay 
was gained an important victory over the French navy. 
In 1762 England was victorious in a war with Spain. 
From 1776 to 1782 England was at war with the Ameri- 
can colonies. From 1790 to 1792 there were conflicts 
in Hindustan, and in 1799 was terminated the war in the 
Carnatic. In 1794 the English took from the French 
Toulon, Corsica and several of the West India Islands. 
In 1798 Admiral Nelson destroyed the French fleet in 
Aboukir Bay and checked Napoleon who was bent upon 
gaining Egypt and winning India. 

England had frequently to meet attempts at invasion 
during this century. In 17 15 the Stuart heir to the 
throne made a futile attempt to gain the crown, and a 
quarter of a century later the Young Pretender made an 
abortive effort. A Spanish fleet bent upon the invasion 
of England was defeated in 1797. Rumors of formid- 
able invasions by France were frequent; in 1756, 1759, 
1779, 1782, 1783, 1796 and 1798. With military en- 
gagements so frequent, enemies so numerous, and dan- 
gers so imminent it is not surprising to find that martial 
zeal and the fighting spirit were strongly developed in 
the nation as a whole. 

The practice of duelling, "the reigning curse of the 
age," grew in part out of this high-strung combative 
spirit. In the latter part of the century, 1 760-1 800, 



Eighteenth Century England 13 

were recorded for England alone fifty-three duels. The 
Right Hon. Wm. Pitt, the Earl of Lonsdale, Lord 
Townshend, the famous John Wilkes and Lord Byron 
were leading public men who fought in duels. 

Sociability, pleasure-seeking and conviviality were char- 
acteristic features of the life of the 18th century. It 
was computed that in London alone even in the earlier 
years of the eighteenth century there were about two 
thousand coffee-houses, and in their frequenters was 
represented every class, business and profession known 
to the country. The coffee-house was a long room, par- 
titioned off into rows and rows of boxes, separated by a 
central aisle, which were filled day and night with guests 
of different sorts and conditions, sipping a cup of coffee 
or tea, reading the journals and periodicals, writing let- 
ters and above all else discussing politics. Clubs were 
numberless, and of every conceivable nature and pur- 
pose, ranging from Sir Joshua Reynolds' Literary Club, 
where men like Samuel Johnson and Edmund Burke met 
for serious discussion of subjects in science, art, and 
literature, to the fraternities for amusement and ban- 
queting, such as "The Nonsense Club" and the "No Pay 
No Liquor Club." Excessive drinking and reckless 
gambling 4 were widely prevalent. Persons of both 
sexes and of all ages from fifteen to eighty had the vicious 
habit, some parties assembling to spend whole nights in 
games of chance; and among the rich and high-born the 
stakes were high. Charles Fox lost at cards 12,000 
pounds one night, and 12,000 more the next afternoon; 
a lady lost one night "3,000 guineas at loo." The state 
patronized lotteries in order to raise revenue for the 
crown; and thus had some share in infecting the nation 
with the spirit of reckless speculation and stock-jobbery. 



14 England's Progress 

The collapse of the notorious South Sea Company of 
1720, that had secured from the government a charter 
for exclusive privileges for trading with the Spanish 
American possessions in return for relieving the state 
of certain big debts, was a national calamity inflicting 
heavy losses on both the government and the people. 
The company was typical of many another get-rich-quick 
concern founded on unsound business and financial prin- 
ciples whose shares of stock promoters were selling in 
Exchange Alley to the gullible public crazed with the 
fever of speculation. To drink heavily seems to have 
been good form, the amount of intoxicating liquors one 
could hold and still "keep his legs" being regarded as a 
rude test of manliness. 5 The royal princes, the nobility, 
the members of Parliament, the gentry, and the ladies 
of fashion worshipped Bacchus to the tune of three to 
six bottles at a sitting, and the professional, business and 
laboring classes were not far behind in their devoted 
libations. Copious and constant were the streams of 
champagne, rum, wine, beer, ale, gin and many another 
intoxicant pouring in tavern, inn and public-house. In 
1752 the Bishop of Gloucester wrote "Those accursed 
spirituous liquors which, to the shame of our Govern- 
ment, are so easily to be had, and in such quantities 
drunk, have changed the very nature of our people. And 
they will, if continued to be drunk, destroy the very race 
of the people themselves." 6 In 1750 the average con- 
sumption per head was six times what it is today. 

The drinking habit must account in a degree for the 
coarse, violent and brutal manners of the period. The 
age lacked refinement. The profanity of the men of 
fashion, the oaths of the gentler sex, the obscenity of 
the popular novels, the immodesty of the theatrical per- 



Eighteenth Century England 15 

formances, the stupid practical jokes played, the vul- 
garity of general conversation, all attest the rudeness of 
the times. The treatment of criminals and the char- 
acter of the amusements and pastimes of the common 
people, such as bull-fights, bear-baiting, cock-fights, and 
encounters in the prize ring between women as well as 
men, bear like testimony. 

The treatment of criminals was extremely inhumane. 
The worst offenders were sometimes pressed to death 
with heavy weights, or were quartered, strangled or 
burnt. The "hanging matches" were public spectacles 
drawing great crowds who made holiday out of the occa- 
sion. And the hangings were frequent. To pick a 
pocket of even a few pennies, to steal from a dwelling 
house a handful of shillings, to steal a sheep, or to take 
cloth from a bleaching ground, were capital offenses. 
When Robert Peel in the next century undertook the 
reform of the criminal code he found that there were 
223 offenses — many of quite minor turpitude — declared 
to be felonies punishable with death. To become in- 
volved in debt or to fall behind in payment of rent was 
often punished by imprisonment and to go to jail was to 
run the risk of being starved, or bitten by rats in some 
fetid dungeon or of catching some loathsome, contagious 
disease, such as smallpox or jail-fever. The fearful con- 
ditions of the English jails were revealed to the world 
by John Howard. 7 From the time he was appointed 
High Sheriff of Bedford in 1773 until his death in 1790 
he devoted his life to the one subject, prison reform. The 
abuses he found were numerous: no regular allowance of 
food or of bedding, no sewers, no fireplaces, no infir- 
maries, no proper ventilation, no sufficient supply of water 
for drinking or washing. He computed that every year 



1 6 England's Progress 

jail-fever carried away more people than the gallows. 
The prisons were not only hotbeds of disease but also 
schools of vice ; for in them no discrimination was made 
on account of age, sex, or character but all alike, men 
and women, boys and girls, first offenders and old hard- 
ened criminals, debtors and felons were crowded to- 
gether, a condition resulting in general and thorough 
contamination. In some places the jails belonged to 
private individuals, who would extort what they could 
from prisoners and the prisoners' friends. In country 
jails which were not strongly built heavy chains, iron 
collars with spikes and heavy iron bars were sometimes 
used to secure the inmates. Such was the case in 1768 
in the jail of Ely which belonged to the bishop. In the 
out-of-the-way districts several relics of barbarism lin- 
gered, such as the pruning-knife for cutting off a culprit's 
ears, a kind of scissors for slitting his nostrils, an "iron 
for searing the wounds," the "tumbril" and the "brank" 
or "gossip's bridle." The "ducking-stool" and the pil- 
lory were employed as means of correction, and to the 
whipping post were sent women as well as men offenders. 
In 1 7 16 was the last judicial execution for witchcraft 
in England but fifteen years later there was a case of try- 
ing a witch by the mediaeval method of water ordeal. 
Lunacy was considered and punished as crime. The pris- 
oner at the bar often suffered injustice by reason of the 
facts that the laws defining crimes and penalties were 
most inconsistent and confusing; and that too much dis- 
cretion and power in determining punishment lay with 
the justices who as a class were woefully ignorant of the 
body of the law and whose decisions were sometimes 
determined by bribes. 

An evil of the later years of the century was the un- 



Eighteenth Century England 1 7 

restricted employment of children in factories and mines. 
The children in the workhouses and in the charitable 
institutions were hired out to the managers of the fac- 
tories and were worked from 12 to 16 hours a day. 
Many thousands of small boys and girls were put under 
heartless masters whose sole purpose was to make money 
and who drove them in their work to the utmost limit 
of endurance. Falling to sleep at their work from over- 
fatigue, the children were often caught in the machinery 
and maimed for life. Destitute and dissolute parents 
were ready for small sums of money to enslave for years 
their offspring. The physical and moral injuries attend- 
ing such a system of labor must have at all times been 
patent enough to any thoughtful observer, but the cen- 
tury closed before the fate of the children of the poor 
touched the heart of the nation. The establishment of 
the public schools in which they may be found to-day 
belongs to the nineteenth century. 

Another class of human beings for whose "welfare no 
man cared" were the thousands of negro slaves, man- 
acled and packed away in the close holds of vessels, being 
carried to the Spanish, French, and English colonists. 
From 1676 to 1776 it has been computed that about 
three millions of Africans were shipped to America, and 
that a quarter of a million more perished on the voyage 
over. The English slave trade had begun as early as 
1562 when John Hawkins carried 300 negroes from 
Sierra Leone to Hispaniola. 8 The nefarious traffic 
was defended partly on the ground that the negroes 
would be better off in America than in Africa, that they 
were exchanging savagery for civilization, heathenism 
for Christianity. What supported the trade so long 
was the enormous profits yielded. To the conservative 



1 8 England's Progress 

and practical mind of the eighteenth century a branch 
of commerce so lucrative and so long established ap- 
peared as a Messing pure and simple, an indispensable 
support of the British navy. 

The age was materialistic and uninformed with the 
spirit of idealism. Reforms and innovations were feared, 
the sentiment "What is is right" prolonging the days of 
many an abuse. The political world was notoriously 
corrupt. It was a time of factions, cliques, and intense 
partisanship when tierce jealousies were rite and con- 
tests were tilled with violence and acrimony. Numerous 
sinecures and lavish patronage were bestowed for ad- 
vancing party interests and bribing at elections was uni- 
versally practiced. George III maintained a corruption 
fund of many thousand pounds with which to buy the 
borough seats in Parliament. Carousing, street-fighting, 
breaking of heads, burning of polling-stations, and 
smashing windows were not unusual features of a hotly 
contested election. 

Among the aristocracy, cynicism, selfishness, expedi- 
ency and skepticism ruled, while in all orders laxity of 
morals and disregard of religious principles prominently 
appeared. In high society conjugal infidelity and dis- 
soluteness were openly countenanced. In the royal fam- 
ily were several conspicuous scandals, and among the 
parliamentary leaders were some who practiced open 
concubinage. The life of the church was decadent: it 
lacked faith and gave no message of compelling power. 
Sermons were cold, formal, literary disquisitions want- 
ing in heart, fervor, and prophetic fire. Enthusiasm was 
purposely avoided as dangerous and wrong. One min- 
ister exhorts against "over-shooting ourselves even in 
the pursuits of virtues. Whether zeal or moderation be 



Eighteenth Century England 19 

the point we aim at, let us keep fire out of one and frost 
out of the other." Miss Wedgewood says, "Those 
words are the motto of the Church of the eighteenth cen- 
tury.' 9 The Methodist and Evangelical movements, 
with their earnest proclamation of the necessity of con- 
version, of justification by faith, and of taking the Bible 
as the rule of life, came not until in the later years of 
the century and as a reaction against the earlier low 
state of religion and morals. 

In the Anglican Church of the eighteenth century the 
political views held and one's party or personal con- 
nections rather than piety or fitness of character for 
office usually determined the appointments to the more 
important ecclesiastical dignities. The bishops often con- 
verted their offices into sinecures not residing in their 
dioceses and resting content with occasional hurried visi- 
tations, and the administration at appointed times of the 
rites of confirmation and ordination. Since many pa- 
rochial endowments and the salaries yielded were small, 
there arose too the evil of holding several benefices by 
one and the same incumbent. The "tenure of a bishopric 
was not considered incompatible with the tenure of a 
deanery, a canonry, or a prebendal stall," 10 the church 
dignitary drawing the incomes from several holdings, 
though having most of the work done by some under- 
paid subordinate. 

The ignorance of the masses in this age appears in 
their credulity and superstition. They believed in div- 
ination, astrology, ghosts, the "royal touch" for heal- 
ing and in the use of surgery and charms. Life was nar- 
row and provincial, lacking in intellectual intercourse, 
travel and exchange from district to district. The roads 
in winter were horrible. Unpaved, insecure from attacks 



20 England's Progress 

of highwaymen, and at times impassable in places they 
prohibited much intercommunication. The farmers, 
humble cottagers, artisans and laborers spent their years, 
as was the wont of their fathers before them, in agri- 
cultural toil or specific trades, their visiting confined 
mainly to the church and ale-house. And the travels of 
the country squires, except for the few who got into 
Parliament, were usually limited to attendance on elec- 
tions and courts at the county seat. The reading public 
in the rural sections was confined to the squirearchy who 
took newspapers. For the great majority of the coun- 
try folk the peddlers and wayfarers were the news 
bringers. The lack of general education is attested by 
the fact that out of "12,000 parishes there were 3500 
without the vestige of a school." Even in the early 
years of the next century London had as many as 120,- 
000 illiterate children, and "in Manchester and Salford 
nearly 10,000 marriages were recorded in which neither 
party could sign their names." "England and Wales," 
says Mathieson, "were unquestionably the least and worst 
educated countries in Protestant Europe." ll 

Yet notwithstanding the darker features of its life, 
England during the century made several notable strides 
forward. It instituted the Cabinet, and introduced party 
government. It established the new Hanoverian line of 
rulers, demonstrating that kings rule by parliamentary 
and national support, not by divine right. 12 It became 
mistress of the sea and won empire in India. In the dis- 
covery of Australia was found a land that proved ere 
long the seat of a great federation of states. It effected 
a just union with Scotland. It experienced the industrial 
revolution, agriculture yielding primacy to manufacture 
and commerce. It was victorious over France both in 



Eighteenth Century England 21 

Europe and America, though losing at Yorktown to the 
colonists assisted by the French fleet. In the John 
Wilkes' struggle it made notable advances in liberty, — the 
rights of freely publishing parliamentary debates, of con- 
stituents to name their representatives in the House of 
Commons, and of security against general search war- 
rants all being established. In the realm of religion 
it witnessed the zeal of the Anglicans for church building 
in Anne's time; the activity of the Evangelicals later 
in founding charity schools and missionary societies; 
the noble work of Robert Raikes in instituting the Sun- 
day School movement; and the rise and expansion of 
Methodism. In the writings of John Locke, Joseph 
Priestley, and Richard Price, and in the pronouncements 
of Chatham and Fox, it learned ideas and principles that 
heralded later constitutional and parliamentary reform, 
— reform not to be had, however, until England got past 
her fears of revolutionary France and Jacobinism. 

REFERENCES 

1. Sydney: England and the English in the Eighteenth Cen- 

tury, Vol. 2, p. 113. 

2. Sydney: Vol. 2, p. 117. 

3. Sydney: Vol. 1, p. 327-328. 

4. Sydney: Vol. 1, p. 245. 

5. Lecky: Vol. 7, p. 187. 

6. Sydney: Vol. 1, p. 62, 63. 

7. Lecky: Vol. 7, p. 327. 

8. Lecky: Vol. 2, p. 242. 

9. Fitchett: Wesley and His Century, p. 144. 

10. Sydney: Vol. 2, p. 332. 

11. Mathieson: England in Transition (1 789-1 832). 

12. Lecky: Vol. 7, p. 381. 



CHAPTER II 

ENGLAND AND THE FRENCH 

REVOLUTION 

1793-1815 

The events of the earlier part of the French Revolu- 
tion elicited general approval rather than alarm in Eng- 
land. Sympathy was felt for a downtrodden people who 
were trying to win liberty and constitutional govern- 
ment. 1 That France, the old enemy, should be weak- 
ened by civil discord meant too, it was thought, that 
England, tor a time at least, need fear no war from that 
quarter and could therefore follow with safety a peace 
policy and lighten the people's taxes. The fall of the 
Bastille was declared by Fox, "the greatest and best event 
that had happened in the world." Fox was a champion 
of the liberty-loving in revolt, and though grieved at the 
violence and bloodshed of the French revolution he re- 
joiced in its success. He deplored its methods but ad- 
mired its spirit, rightly believing that its basal principles 
were good. 2 It was natural to have sympathy and ad- 
miration for the French democrats: for in 1789 there 
existed in England grave social economic and constitu- 
tional evils needing correction, just as was the case in 
France. Hoping to effect reform, men of republican 
views in England and the political dissenters generally 
largely under French influence formed several revolu- 
tionary societies. The "Friends of the People" society 
had a membership of the highest respectability and influ- 
ence, including many members of Parliament such as 

22 



England and the French Revolution 23 

Russell, Grey and Sheridan. The "London Correspond- 
ence Society," first formed as a secret order, numbered 
between 6000 and 7000 members. The "Society of Con- 
stitutional Information" consisted of the more advanced 
and thorough-going among educated men of radical 
views. In many towns clubs were formed "avowedly 
affiliated to the democratic clubs in Trance." Among 
prominent enthusiastic admirers of the French Revolu- 
tion were Price, Paine and Mackintosh.'' But enthusiasm 
in England for the French Revolution did not long con- 
tinue. As the movement progressed, exhibiting soon its 
violent, anarchic spirit, subverting law and order, over- 
turning throne and altar, and revealing its intention to 
propagate its ideas in other countries, English public 
opinion changed, and, influenced by the views of Edmund 
Burke, became eventually heartily opposed to the revolu- 
tion. Burke, a believer in a highly aristocratic consti- 
tutional monarchy as the best form of government and 
having little faith in rule by the people, was from first 
to last bitterly hostile to the experiments of the French 
republicans. In 1790 he published his famous essay 
"Reflections on the French Revolution" of which 30,000 
copies were shortly sold. Burke declared that "France 
was setting an example of anarchy, fraud, violence and 
atheism." 4 He predicted that the probable close of the 
anarchy of the Revolution would be a military des- 
potism/' Fie protested against comparing, as some were 
doing, the English Revolution of 1688 with the French. 
Revolution, and his advice to the English was to have 
nothing whatever to do with the French Constitution. 

The conservative views of Burke in time prevailed 
also with the English government. The prime minister, 
the younger Pitt, at first thinking it probable that the 



24 England's Progress 

political turmoil of France would issue finally in estab- 
lishing a constitutional monarchy approximating Eng- 
land's in character, had determined to follow a neutral 
policy and not to interfere at all with French internal 
affairs. He was interested in domestic reforms, and 
hoped for at least fifteen years of peace in which to 
carry out his cherished plans of economy and retrench- 
ment. He looked toward reducing the public debt, light- 
ening the taxes, abolishing the slave trade and liberaliz- 
ing the constitution. In August, 179 1, he refused to 
join the European powers in offering concerted action 
against France, and in the spring of 1792 he submitted 
a budget framed entirely upon a peace basis. 

But the turn of events soon forced Pitt to abandon 
the position of non-intervention. No sooner had the Ja- 
cobins gotten in control of Paris and succeeded in repel- 
ling the Austrians and Prussians, than it was made clear 
that the French would not be content with righting their 
own institutions, but believed they had a mission to per- 
form in righting the governments of other peoples as 
well. On November 19, 1792, they issued a famous de- 
cree "promising fraternity to all nations desirous of 
liberty." Letters, pamphlets and secret agents were des- 
patched from France into other states to stir up political 
discontent and the spirit of revolt. As a result, in Eng- 
land a royal proclamation was issued May 21, 1792, 
against seditious writings, and an Alien Bill was passed 
January 4, 1793, requiring "foreigners to state the object 
of their visit to England, to enter their names on a reg- 
ister, and to have passports" for moving from place to 
place. To guard against further riots, some of which 
had occurred that seemed to have been incited by emis- 
saries of the Jacobins, the government in December, 



England and the French Revolution 25 

1792, called out the militia. 6 Pitt soon realized that 
war would come. He noted that the revolutionists were 
issuing orders to disregard all treaty obligations, and to 
open the navigation of the Scheldt, which treaty guar- 
antees by France and other countries had closed, the 
opening of which could not but bring France directly into 
opposition both to Holland and to England; that they 
appropriated Savoy and Nice; and that they occupied 
Belgium. France was assuming the right of setting 
treaties at naught, and was subverting the political sys- 
tem of Europe. As the "shores of the low countries had 
always been recognized as a vital part of the English de- 
fence," 7 Pitt could not consent to their occupation by the 
French and remonstrated.. The French then declared 
war on England and Holland, February 1, 1793. Only 
ten days earlier, on January 21, the execution of Louis 
XVI had occurred and this event mightily stirred popu- 
lar hatred and passion. 

From 1793 to 18 15 warfare between England and 
France was almost constant. After the fall of Robes- 
pierre and the Jacobins, the National Democratic Con- 
vention gave way, October, 1795, to the rule of the 
Directory, an executive committee of five members, sup- 
ported by two legislative bodies. The Directory in turn 
gave way November 10, 1799 to the authority of Na- 
poleon, who, supported by the army, made himself First 
Consul and then Emperor, and was virtually dictator 
in France until his overthrow in 18 15. Under all these 
different governments France remained hostile to Eng- 
land. It is true there were three attempts on the part 
of Pitt to negotiate peace, in 1795, 1796, and in 1797, 
but on account of France's success at arms they were 
unavailing. The Peace of Amiens, made with Napoleon 



26 England's Progress 

March 27, 1802, was only a truce, for during the four- 
teen months' cessation of active hostilities both powers 
were busy strengthening themselves for approaching con- 
flicts. 

England contended hard and long in maintaining the 
fundamental principles of her foreign policy, all of 
which were fiercely assailed. These principles are ( 1 ) 
"guarding the security of the country from invasion by 
maintaining sea-supremacy; (2) keeping the coasts of 
the Netherlands in friendly hands"; (3) protecting her 
colonies; (4) holding India; (5) retaining control of 
the Meditteranean; and (6) preserving the European 
Balance of Power by preventing France or any other 
state from getting an overwhelming predominance on 
the Continent. 

The course pursued by the French, especially under Na- 
poleon, was in direct opposition to all these principles. 8 
Napoleon undertook, like Charles the Great, to subju- 
gate all Europe. Like Alexander the Great, he sought 
to establish an Eastern Empire in India. He sought 
to invade England, to rob her of her supremacy in the 
Meditteranean, to destroy her commerce, to take her 
colonies, and so to weaken her that she should not be 
able to thwart his plans for universal empire. But 
thwart him England did : by hard fought battles on land 
and sea, by building great coalitions of allies against 
him, and by furnishing millions of pounds of subsidies 
for supporting the armies of the allies. In five different 
years, 1793, 1798, 1805, 1813, 1814-15, France found 
herself opposed by a new coalition of allies, England 
being the chief builder and factor in all of them. Great 
Britain lacked a well-equipped army at the first, and con- 
sequently the plan she pursued against France was to 



England and the French Revolution 27 

assist the allies with her navy and with money. Eng- 
land's maritime power could inflict great injury on the 
enemy by destroying her commerce, blockading her ports, 
and taking her colonies. But to bring France, a Con- 
tinental power, to terms land battles had to be fought, 
and since the powers of Europe would fight her if Eng- 
land would help to pay their troops, England determined 
to furnish the funds and put their armies in the field. The 
subsidizing was on a tremendous scale. In the nine years 
succeeding 1792 England's public debt was raised 336,- 
000,000 pounds for subsidizing and military purposes. 
In 1793 the Island Kingdom was furnishing subsidies 
to Russia, Sardinia, Spain, Naples, Prussia, Austria, Por- 
tugal and Tuscany. 

England was able to raise the money because British 
credit was good; because King, Lords, Commons and 
people were united in purpose; because the security and 
strength of their government insured social order and 
encouraged business; because there was steady growth 
in trade, manufactures, and commerce; because markets 
for British products were multiplied, safe trade with 
which was possible on account of the ubiquitous English 
navy. The mutinies in the navy in 1797 at Spithead and 
at the Nore, due to low wages, to an unfair system of 
pensions and promotion, to desire for a larger share of 
prize money, and to dissatisfaction with certain officers, 
were handled firmly, yet with sympathy for the sailors. 
Since the trouble resulted in the removal of abuses which 
had cursed the naval service for years, an increasing loy- 
alty was produced. Later in this same year, 1797, when 
a Dutch fleet was gathered across the channel near Cam- 
perdown to assist France in a contemplated invasion of 
England, Holland having been led into alliance with* 



28 England's Progress 

France, these same crews, so lately in rebellion, showed 
their patriotism, by rushing on the Dutch fleet with their 
old time valour and gaining a grand victory. 9 

England reaped big gains from the alliance of Hol- 
land with France, for that made the Dutch colonial pos- 
session open to attack. Great Britain had soon taken 
their rich settlements in Ceylon, and on the Malabar 
coast: the Cape; and the Moluccas. While England 
suffered an occasional loss in the West Indies and was 
troubled here and in other portions of her colonial em- 
pire by insurrections stirred up by French agents, on the 
whole England's colonies remained faithful, as did India. 
The rebellion in Ireland in 1798, largely incited by the 
French, was successfully put down and resulted in a 
corporate union between Great Britain and Ireland. 
Later victories against France were due in no small part 
to the many brave Irishmen in the ranks of the army. 
While England experienced a total loss of commerce 
with France, Holland and the Belgian Netherlands, this 
injury was more than counterbalanced by an increase of 
commerce with Germany, Russia and the United States. 
British money was what held together the enemies of 
France when offering a united opposition; and without 
those subsidies, the French army might have conquered 
all Europe. 

Napoleon's hostility to England was unceasing. 
Three notable, though futile, attempts he made to de- 
stroy her. First, when a general under the Directory in 
1798 he sought to ruin Great Britain by blocking her way 
to India through Egypt and Turkey. He landed an 
army in Egypt and had no difficulty in getting control 
of this country, but his progress toward India was 
blocked at Acre, in Syria, by Sydney Smith where Bona- 



England and the French Revolution 29 

parte lost nearly 5000 men, and his navy was destroyed 
by Nelson in Aboukir Bay. His second plan was to in- 
vade England, which he attempted in 1805. He gath- 
ered an army of 150,000 men at Boulogne, which forces 
he hoped to get across the English Channel by means of 
the combined fleets of Spain and France and the use of 
a number of specially built transports. His plan was to 
have the scattered ships of the French fleet that were 
shut up in various harbors of France break the blockade, 
and with the Spanish fleet make for the West Indies with 
the hope of having the British fleet under Nelson fol- 
low them. They were then to turn back, escaping Net- 
son, make a dash for the English channel, and hold it 
long enough to allow Napoleon's transports to get their 
troops across to the island. Part of the plan worked 
well, for Nelson pursued to the Indies and the French 
fleet under Admiral Villeneuve eluded him, getting back 
safely to the Spanish coast. But there was delay at 
Cadiz for two months by Villeneuve and when he did 
move out Nelson, who had meantime learned of the 
manoeuvre, was back, met him in Trafalgar Bay and de- 
stroyed his entire fleet. Nelson lost his life in the bat- 
tle, but the victory forever defeated Napoleon's plan of 
invading England. 

His third scheme was to humble England by destroy- 
ing her commerce and industry. In 1806 when his alli- 
ance with Russia and his victories over neighboring 
states had given him virtual control of almost the entire 
sea-board of Europe, he instituted his so-called "Conti- 
nental System" by issuing decrees from Berlin "declaring 
the British Isles in a state of blockade, forbidding all 
commerce between Great Britain and her colonies and 
the territories occupied by France or her allies, and 



30 England's Progress 

ordering the confiscation of all British merchandise 
wherever found." 10 Of course Great Britain retaliated, 
"declaring the ports of France and her allies in a state 
of blockade and neutral vessels trading between them law- 
ful prize." 

In this commercial struggle, a sort of duel by starva- 
tion, England, in possessing a colonial trade of consid- 
erable importance, had the advantage over France. The 
loyalty of her people too would bear sacrifice in order to 
gain victory over the hated Napoleon. In conquered 
Europe, popular sentiment was against the Emperor. 
The peoples of the different states under his rule could 
see no good or right in this plan for personal, selfish 
aggrandizement at the cost of so much suffering to them- 
selves; and as business slackened, ports closed, factories 
shut down, and commerce ceased, bringing unemploy- 
ment, poverty, distress and hunger the people began to 
curse the Berlin Decrees and their author. Here we 
see the beginning of Napoleon's ruin. Attempting to 
force Portugal against her will to join the Continental 
System, he overran the state, captured Lisbon, and then 
with basest ingratitude for former assistance rendered, 
deposed the Spanish monarch, Charles IV, and made his 
own brother Joseph king. Both of these acts thoroughly 
incensed the people of the whole Spanish Peninsula, and 
led to their furnishing in 1808 a safe entrance for the 
English army of 18,000 troops under Wellington. In 
1 8 10 Russia, encouraged by England, withdrew from Na- 
poleon's Continental System. In 18 12 came the disas- 
trous Moscow Campaign when the French Emperor on 
retreating left on the frozen plains of Russia an army 
of half a million men. Seeing his power now was broken, 
all his foes took heart, and in 18 13 the Fourth Great 



England and the French Revolution 31 

Coalition of Prussia, Austria, Sweden, England and Rus- 
sia was formed, whose combined armies overwhelmed 
him at Leipsic in a three days' battle, October 16-18. 
In this battle Napoleon lost in killed and wounded 50,000 
out of 250,000 of his command. This defeat caused his 
first abdication and his retirement to Elba. On his es- 
caping from Elba, dispossessing the restored Louis 
XVIII and seizing again imperial power in Paris, the 
Fifth Great Coalition of Great Britain, Russia, Austria 
and Prussia was formed, 18 14, and their united strength 
achieved his final overthrow at the Battle of Waterloo 
June 18, 18 15. In this famous battle, the British under 
command of the Duke of Wellington lost 13,000, the 
Prussians under Bliicher 7,000, and Napoleon lost, if 
prisoners be included, 37,000 men, over half his army, 
and also the whole of his artillery, ammunition, baggage 
wagons, and military train. The Emperor fled to the 
capital, abdicated a second time, and then surrendered 
himself to the commander of a British war-ship the Bel- 
lerophon. He was exiled to St. Helena, an isolated 
rocky island belonging to Great Britain off the coast of 
Africa, where he remained until his death in 1821. 

After Napoleon's first abdication, the Allies had re- 
stored Louis XVIII to the throne of France, made a 
peace treaty with him, May 30, 18 14, and had assem- 
bled a great international congress at Vienna for deter- 
mining a general peace settlement for all Europe. There 
were diplomats and princes from many states, but what 
was done at the conference was decided by the Five 
Great Powers, Russia, Prussia, Austria, England and 
France. The congress continued from September, 18 14, 
to June, 18 1 5, their final agreement, the Treaty of 
Vienna, being signed June 9, 18 15, only a few days be- 



32 England's Progress 

fore the Battle of Waterloo. After this battle, a sec- 
ond treaty was made with France, November 20, 18 15. 
The settlement required that the nation should pay a 
war indemnity of 28,000,000 pounds, that she should 
support an army of occupation for five years, and that 
the Bourbon Louis XVIII should occupy the throne. 
His territories were reduced to the old lines existing be- 
fore war opened in 1792. England received not incon- 
siderable gains. While Java was returned to the Dutch, 
she kept Heligoland, Tobago, St. Lucia, Ceylon, and 
Cape Colony in South Africa, and her position in the 
Mediterranean was strengthened by the retention of 
Malta. 

REFERENCES 

i. Bright: History of England, Vol. 1689-1837, p. 1160. 

2. Harrison: International Policy of Great Britain, p. 59. 

3. Lecky: Vol. 6, p. 433. 

4. Hunt and Poole: Political History of England, Vol. 10, 

p. 308. 

5. Lecky: Vol. 6, p. 403. 

6. Bright: Vol. 1689-1839, P- 1168. 

7. Burrows: History of Foreign Policy of Great Britain, p. 170. 

8. Burrows: History of Foreign Policy of Great Britain, p. 

171-174. 

9. Hunt and Poole: Vol. 10, p. 378. 
iOi Terry: History of England, p. 965. 



CHAPTER III 

ERA OF REACTION AND REPRESSION 

1815-1821 

The Allied Powers at the Congress of Vienna in 18 15 
in their settlement of the peace of Europe after the fall 
of Napoleon made one capital mistake, namely — not tak- 
ing into account when changing the boundaries and gov- 
ernments of states the sentiments, predilections, and 
wills of the people affected by such alterations. It was 
for this reason mainly that so much of the work of that 
Congress did not prove permanent. According to the de- 
crees of the Congress France was ever to be a monarchy 
under the absolute rule of the Bourbon dynasty; Teu- 
tonic Holland and French Belgium were to form a single 
kingdom under the rule of the House of Orange; Lom- 
bardy and Venetia were given to Austria, and Austria 
was to remain the ruling power in Germany and Italy; 
as to the Italian states, Genoa was handed over to Sar- 
dinia, the central ecclesiastical provinces were restored 
to the rule of the Papacy, and Naples and Sicily were 
placed again under the former Bourbon masters. But 
all this has since been changed. France proclaimed in 
1870 the Third Republic which still exists; Holland and 
Belgium separated in 1830 and each set up an indepen- 
dent kingdom for itself. Lombardy with the assistance of 
French arms in 1859 and Venetia with the military aid 
of Prussia and Sardinia in 1866 threw off the Austrian 
yoke; the present Italian Kingdom first proclaimed in 

33 



34 England's Progress 

1 86 1 had incorporated by 1870 every state in the whole 
peninsula; and since 1856 Prussia, not Austria, has been 
the leader in German affairs. The wishes of the popula- 
tions concerned had not been consulted and the arrange- 
ments did not last. The European statesmen and princes 
at Vienna labored under the delusion also that no good 
could come out of the French Revolution. England was 
a chief actor in the Congress of Vienna, her representa- 
tive there being at the first Lord Castlereagh and later 
the Duke of Wellington, both staunch Tories. That 
England should be regarded as the champion of liberty 
and popular rights is justified by much of her history, 
but at this Congress the nation did not appear in that 
light. The government was eager to conclude as soon 
as possible a peace settlement which would be generally 
satisfactory to the other Great Powers and which would 
therefore probably last for some years, and in seeking 
this she accorded sanction and support to several illiberal 
and unpatriotic schemes. The giving of two-fifths of 
the Kingdom of Saxony to Prussia, the establishment 
of Austrian rule in Italy, the acquisition of Poland by 
Russia and Prussia, the cutting off of Norway from Den- 
mark and joining it to Sweden, and other like acts of 
the Congress in which the rights of nationalities and peo- 
ples were sacrificed to the selfish interests of particular 
governments, were all acquiesced in by England. 

The responsibility for her share in these reactionary 
and repressive measures of the Congress rests, though, 
on her aristocracy and Tory ministry mainly for in 18 15 
the English government was by no means representative 
of the whole nation. George IV as Regent during the 
mental incapacity of his father (181 1-1 820) , and as King 
( 1820-1 830) , continued in power the Tories. His Prime 



Era of Reaction and Repression 35 

Minister was Lord Liverpool, a most bitter opponent of 
constitutional reform. The Lord Chancellor was Lord 
Eldon, who devoted his great intellectual powers to ob- 
structing all changes in the law that tended to equalize 
the political status of different classes; the Home Secre- 
tary was Lord Sidmouth, an unprogressive statesman of 
mediocre talent who had been a highly favored minister 
of the illiberal King George III ; the Secretary of For- 
eign Affairs was Lord Castlereagh than whom no one 
was more hated by the leading Liberals of the day. The 
Toryism of such a ministry was less intelligent, less lib- 
eral, and more violent than the Toryism of the govern- 
ment in the earlier years of the century, well represented 
in William Pitt who was kept from undertaking needed 
political reforms by the necessity of carrying on foreign 
wars; or than the later Toryism of men like George 
Canning, Sir Robert Peel and Huskisson who came to 
influence about 1822, and who championed the ideas of 
social and economic reforms. From 1815 to 1820 a 
Toryism that identified reform with revolution, and that 
enacted legislation of a deliberately reactionary form 
ruled supreme. This force it was, and not a freely ex- 
pressed national sentiment, that was responsible for the 
role played by England at the Congress of Vienna. 

As to domestic affairs, the three decades, 1800— 1830, 
of Tory government have been termed the "period of 
legislative quiescence" 1 by which designation is meant 
that in this period politically no material improvement or 
amendment was made in the fundamental law of the 
land. In general the character of the laws passed in 
these years was either reactionary or paternal; the meas- 
ures did not contemplate any increase of political power 
for the people, but on the contrary sought to weaken 



36 England's Progress 

their influence in governmental affairs through attempt- 
ing either to allay popular discontent by humanitarian 
treatment or to suppress by force their means of politi- 
cal agitation. To be sure the body of fundamental law 
needed revision, the legal abuses being evident, numerous 
and grave ; but the party in control felt that prudence nec- 
essitated leaving everything just as it stood rather than 
to venture any innovation sought by those whose loudest 
clamour was for parliamentary reform in the direction 
of democracy. They were heartily supported in this 
position by the titled nobility, the higher-placed clergy- 
man, and the opulent aristocrat who held a very opti- 
mistic view of the structure of the English government 
and felt that Englishmen ought to be satisfied with the 
fact that they enjoyed greater liberties than the subjects 
of the neighboring European states. They passed in 
this era several measures of a humane character, forbid- 
ding the "slave trade in 1806, abolishing the pillory in 
1 8 16, prohibiting the whipping of women in 1820, pen- 
alizing cruelty to animals in 1822, prohibiting the use 
of spring guns in 1827," 2 and placing regulations on the 
employment of labor in factories in the health and moral 
acts of 1802, 1819, 1825, 1829 and 1831; but while 
they exhibited in the enactment of these laws a desire 
to lessen as far as they could suffering and pain for the 
unfortunate, they showed at the same time their readiness 
to restrict popular rights and privileges by passing such 
reactionary laws as the Combination Act of 1800 and 
the Six Acts of 18 19. 

The Combination Act reveals clearly enough that the 
interest of employers of labor were better represented 
in Parliament in 1800 than the interest of working men. 
It was a severe statute, aimed especially at the suppres- 



Era of Reaction and Repression 37 

sion of strikes, trade unions, and every sort of combina- 
tion among workmen which sought to advance wages or 
to better conditions of employment. Taken along with 
the law of conspiracy already on the statute books, this 
act virtually meant that any "artisan who organized a 
strike or joined a trade union was a criminal and liable 
on conviction to imprisonment; the strike was a crime, 
the trade union was an unlawful association." 3 The 
theory of the law was that laborers and artisans must 
be contented with the customary rate of wages, and never 
use the pressure of numbers, nor organize offering com- 
mon resistance, nor do anything in fact together with the 
purpose of forcing their employers to raise their pay. 
Combinations were objectionable to the government too 
because they suggested the revolutionary clubs of 
France. It was the dread of sedition and rebellion that 
inspired also the passing of the Six Acts of 1819. These 
measures aimed among other things to prevent political 
gatherings and mass meetings among the common folk; 
to stop through severe penalties so-called seditious writ- 
ings and organizations; to curtail the right of public 
discussion; to forbid, unless under supervision of the 
civil authorities, the training of persons to the use of 
arms and to the practice of military evolutions; and to 
check the circulation of certain cheap newspapers by the 
imposition of stamp duties. The Act for preventing the 
assembling of seditious gatherings, so restricted the right 
of holding public meetings for the lower classes as to 
make the right valueless. It allowed "meetings of coun- 
ties called by the lord lieutenant or sheriff; meetings for 
corporate towns called by the mayor . . . ; and meet- 
ings called by five or more justices of the peace," but with 
these exceptions, it forbade all meetings for the consid- 



38 England's Progress 

eration of grievances in Church and State, or for the 
purpose of preparing petitions, except in the parishes (or 
townships, where parishes are divided into townships) 
where the individuals usually reside. 4 No one except an 
actual resident could attend such a meeting, and pre- 
vious notice of such meetings had to be given by seven 
inhabitants to a neighboring magistrate, who possessed 
the discretionary power of forbidding it altogether if he 
liked. No person bearing weapons or banners could 
attend such a meeting. Thus the lower classes could be 
kept strictly to the small parish meetings, and from 
these assemblies all itinerant orators, being strangers, 
would be excluded; and since at the time, 18 19, many 
wealthy and popular towns, such as Manchester, Bir- 
mingham and Sheffield were not incorporated and also 
had no representative in Parliament, they were denied 
the only means they had of calling attention to their 
grievances and needs. This unfair measure was limited, 
however, in its duration to five years. 

To explain the passage of these laws it is necessary 
to give a somewhat detailed account of the general 
economic conditions and dissatisfied state of national 
feeling in England in the period immediately succeeding 
the close of the Napoleonic wars, and to show the forms 
of expressions which that discontent was taking. After 
peace was made in 18 15 there followed in England a 
time of unexampled distress notwithstanding the na- 
tional expectation that the cessation of hostilities would 
inaugurate an era of remarkable prosperity. The causes 
for this unusual state of wide-spread economic depres- 
sion and consequent unhappiness are not far to seek. 
The enormous expenditures of the government for war 
supplies of every sort for so many years had furnished 



Era of Reaction and Repression 39 

a new, profitable, but artificial market for the products 
of farm and factory. The government was not only 
spending millions of borrowed money on its own army 
necessities, but was lending also immense sums to her 
allies for provisions and military stores. During the 
last year of the war the government through taxation 
or loans had raised 170,000,000 pounds. Her national 
debt had amounted to the prodigious sum of 861,039,049 
pounds. 5 These lavish outlays of money produced an 
abnormal inflation of prices, which led many manufac- 
turers and undertakers engaged in agricultural trade to 
extend their operations on borrowed capital and at heavy 
initial expenses, hoping to realize big profits on their 
ventures by selling in a rising market. Considerable 
impetus and advantage were given British industries and 
commerce by the suspension of manufactures in parts of 
the Continent where hostile armies came, and by the sus- 
pension of commerce caused by Napoleon's restrictive 
trade regulation which forbade free commercial inter- 
course and access to natural markets. England's territory 
was free of battles and hostile armies, and therefore 
the peaceful life of plough and loom proceeded without 
interruption. So long as the war lasted all hands willing 
to work in some industry could find employment. In 
spite of the prohibitions of the Continental System, a 
well organized contraband trade flourished. British 
shipowners were prospering and were fast getting con- 
trol of the carrying trade of the world. English exports 
in 1792 were valued at 27,000,000 pounds; but in 18 15 
at 58,000,000 pounds. 

Agriculture yielded enormous profits for some years. 
So high was the general level of prices for wheat in par- 
ticular that many men of the adventurous, speculative, 



40 England's Progress 

and spendthrift type entered on farming, substituting 
the careful provident, small cultivators. They brought 
under the plough much poor land formerly felt to be un- 
profitable to till. Exercising poor judgment they took 
crop after crop from the same piece of ground to the 
great exhaustion of the soil, and abandoned in the sole 
interest of producing grain many advantageous and 
necessary forms of husbandry. The deficiency of the 
harvests in some years and the constant demands of war 
greatly heightened the price of corn (that is wheat and 
breadstuffs). During the closing years of the conflict 
the price of wheat was at times double what it was in 
the opening year. The inflation was due to exceptional 
demand, to temporary scarcity and monopoly. With the 
return to natural conditions at the close of the war this 
inflation largely disappeared, the price of wheat for three 
years varying generally from 60 s. to 80 s. instead of 
from 90 s. to 120 s. and the lowered market meant heavy 
losses for those who had projected their enterprises on 
the faith of the continuance of high prices. The land 
owners, as a class, were, however, protected considerably 
by the corn laws. Pressed by the powerful landed in- 
terests, and accepting their doctrines that agriculture was 
the true basis of national strength, and that from a mili- 
tary point of view it was not safe to allow the country 
to depend on its neighbors for food-supply, Parliament 
passed a law in 18 15 that practically prohibited the im- 
portation of foreign grain until the price of wheat in 
England had reached at least 80 shillings a quarter. 
After this law had been in effect for some time, the "slid- 
ing scale" acts were passed which established a system 
of varying tariffs, so that when the price of home grown 
wheat rose above a definite figure the duty on imported 



Era of Reaction and Repression 41 

wheat was to sink proportionally. But the corn laws 
were vicious in principle, and did more harm than good. 
Whatever benefit the wheat growers received was given 
at the expense of the consumers of the whole nation. 
In order to put more money in the corn grower's pocket 
the government, in excluding by law foreign grain, was 
making bread scarce and dear for all the rest of the 
people. Money-making for the landowners after this 
method meant for the poor hunger and suffering. The 
measures, too, made prices more variable: and the more 
frequent and uncertain the fluctuation in prices, the more 
rife was speculation, and the greater were the risks taken 
and the losses incurred. These violent fluctuations 
brought disaster to many farmers. Overwhelmed with 
debt they had to suspend or limit their operations which 
involved discharging their laborers who were added to 
the increasing class of the needy unemployed. 

The commercial classes experienced likewise serious 
disappointments and financial losses. Not a few enter- 
prising commercial men, believing that the continental 
demand for English exports when peace came would 
be twice as great as it was in war, and desiring to share 
in the prospective profits, transferred money from legiti- 
mate and lucrative trade to the purchase of colonial 
produce for exportation. They overlooked the fact that 
the continent had been greatly impoverished by the long 
war and that as a consequence it did not have the means 
to obtain the English goods. France, Russia, Spain and 
Germany had experienced such a drain on their resources 
by the final struggles of 18 14-15 that they lacked money 
for necessities. The export trade suffered a reduction 
of 16%, and the import trade nearly 20%, which de- 
cline involved numerous bankruptcies, and the wholesale 
dismissal of working people. The Continent's revival 



42 England's Progress 

of domestic industries lessened the foreign demand also 
for British manufactured goods; and the iron and textile 
industries of England especially suffered when the gov- 
ernment discontinued its purchases for military purposes. 
The price of iron fell from 20 to 10 pounds. 

The condition of the lower working classes was most 
distressful. Even in times of general business pros- 
perity they had not received a fair subsistence wage. 
Many of them had to have assistance out of the parish 
poor rates. A vicious system of poor relief made it pos- 
sible for employers of laborers to pay low wages. The 
work people were being thrown out of employment also 
from the substitution of machine labor for hand labor 
in the factories. The ranks of the unemployed were 
swollen too by great accessions of the disbanded soldiers. 
In the years between 18 14 and 18 16 there were 500,000, 
and in the years 1816-17-19 there were 250,000 men 
released from the army and navy. With the close of 
the war there came too a severe winter and a deficient 
harvest, which made foodstuffs very dear. In the year 
18 17 Parliament authorized an expenditure of 750,000 
pounds for employing the laboring poor on public works. 

The general discontent and misery of the people gave 
rise soon to popular disturbances of anarchic, violent 
character, such as bread-riots, the smashing of machinery, 
and the burning of the hay-ricks. Here and there fac- 
tories and stores were broken into, and occasionally 
night attacks were made on the houses of magistrates 
and landlords. High rents, which had advanced 70%, 
was a chief cause of the popular hatred for the latter 
class. The landlords with their families were compelled 
in some cases to abandon their houses for a time in order 
to save themselves from the fury of angry, hungry mobs. 



Era of Reaction and Repression 43 

In June, 18 17, the carriage of the unpopular dissolute 
Prince Regent was attacked. Now and then a town 
fell into the hands of a mob and the tumult could only be 
suppressed by calling out the military forces. In the cities 
appeared frequent threatening assemblies of artisans 
and agricultural laborers who were clamouring aloud 
for employment and for reduction in prices of meat and 
grain. In the cries of these people was not heard at the 
first a demand for political reform: in pain and want 
they blindly called aloud for material relief with no 
care or plan as to how the aid should come. But before 
long the noise and tumult of the ignorant masses had 
aroused the political interest of a few intelligent, thought- 
ful, public-spirited men above them who better under- 
stood what conditions were wrong in the nation's life, 
and who soon gave to the people's "plaint a distinct tone 
and a definite purpose." To William Cobbett, must 
be given chief credit of having given a political turn 
to the discontent and unhappiness of the people. Cob- 
bett was not a man of the college-bred type, who had 
had his head crammed with various theories of political 
science and constitutional systems; but he did know life. 
He was a man of the people, had been a soldier in the 
army serving in Canada, had been a bookseller in New 
York and Philadelphia, and had traveled widely. He 
acquired an excellent mastery of the English language 
and achieved success as an editor. He established a 
periodical called "The Weekly Political Register" in 
which he argued that most of the evils that Englishmen 
then complained of were to be attributed directly and 
almost altogether to a bad system of government. The 
price of his paper was reduced from a shilling to two 
pence in 18 16, and at once it became an authority with 
the laboring classes. It circulated over the whole coun- 



44 England's Progress 

try and was read in shop and cottage. His cure for 
the evils of the time was simply to reform Parliament. 
He wanted universal suffrage, annual parliaments, elec- 
tion by ballot, and only a single legislative chamber. 
Some of his demands were far ahead of the times, but 
his work was the beginning of a great agitation which 
did not end until the great Reform Bill of 1832 was 
passed. Other friends and promoters of reform were 
Lord Brougham, Sir Francis Burdett, Samuel Whit- 
bread, Lord Cochrane, Sir Samuel Romilly, Charles Earl 
Grey, and Lord John Russell. Some of these men had 
been urging in the House of Commons Parliamentary 
reform before the long war opened in 1783; but now 
after that war had closed, having lasted over two de- 
cades, they had still to wait a period almost long enough 
for an infant in arms to grow to the stature of a man 
before that most reasonable demand was gained. 

To the Tory ministers, Liverpool, Castlereagh and 
Eldon the demands possible to be made on England after 
the peace settlement of Vienna, just as the dangers to 
which the country had been exposed when conducting the 
war, furnished good reason for refusing to introduce 
more of popular power in the government. In their 
opinion, the position of Great Britain as a sort of pro- 
tector of that settlement had to be sustained. Times 
were perilous and it was deemed possible that at any 
moment the nation might be called upon to act with 
all her force in concluding some contest between Con- 
tinental powers. They feared too popular discontent at 
home. Therefore their plans at the first for continuing 
the war taxes and keeping on foot an army of 150,000 
men in time of peace. But the Whigs and Radicals in- 
terpreted the Tory policy in conjunction with the treaties 



Era of Reaction and Repression 45 

entered into at the Congress of Vienna to mean that 
the government intended to raise England into a great 
military power, and for the bad purpose too of interfering 
on the continent to guarantee sovereigns there against 
the triumph of democracy in their territories: so they 
began vigorous opposition, and in 1816 raised the cry: 
"Peace, Retrenchment and Reform." By flooding Par- 
liament with petitions that exhibited the universal hos- 
tility of the country to the proposed continuance of cer- 
tain income and property taxes first laid on for war 
purposes, they succeeded in defeating in Parliament the 
Tory ministry on that score. The ministers were led 
also to cut down the army and navy to the lowest limit 
consistent with national security. In the interest of eco- 
nomy, they announced in 18 17 that the Regent resigned 
to the public one-fifth of his whole receipts, amounting to 
50,000 pounds a year, and they passed several acts the 
object of which was to get rid of many useless offices. 

But while the Tories yielded somewhat to the Whigs' 
demands for peace and retrenchment in that they cut 
down the war taxes and made considerable reduction 
in governmental expenses, they were for some years dead 
set against all proposals for political reforms. The min- 
istry seemed to think that every society and gathering of 
the people where reform was discussed had hidden within 
it a treacherous conspiracy against the government. Just 
after the carriage of the Prince Regent was attacked 
in 18 17 two secret committees, one from the House of 
Commons and one from the House of Lords, were ap- 
pointed to inquire into the general state of the political 
unrest. The House Committee declared that revolu- 
tionary clubs were organized all over the country. The 
Lords Committee likewise reported the existence of a 



46 England's Progress 

great net-work of societies, which pretended to be work- 
ing for Parliamentary reform but were really militant 
in purpose and were doing their best "to infect the minds 
of all classes with the spirit of disaffection and a con- 
tempt of law, religion, and morality." 6 As a matter of 
fact, the organizations were merely peaceful debating so- 
cieties or literary clubs where politics and reform were 
discussed. The innocent marching in procession and 
the occasional drilling of awkward labourers to keep step 
and in line when assembling in the big out-of-door mass 
meetings was the military feature inspiring so much fear. 
The strikes, riots and even occasional feeble attacks on 
governmental authority were only impressive manifesta- 
tions of general destitution and distress; yet they were 
considered by the ministry to be convincing signs of 
a Jacobin conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy. 

It is true that the discovered Cato Street affair, Feb. 
23, 1820, whose chief instigator was a violent radical, 
Arthur Thistlewood, was a genuine, murderous plot to 
assassinate the whole ministry while at a Cabinet dinner, 
and Thistlewood and four of his accomplices justly paid 
for it with their lives; but the Spa Fields gathering of 
Dec. 2, 18 1 6, the Derby insurrection of June 10, 18 17, 
and the Bonnymuir rising in Scotland, April 3, 1820, con- 
nected with each of which was rioting and the fatal 
shooting of somebody, were expressions, neither surpris- 
ing nor unnatural of misguided ignorant classes suffer- 
ing acute economic distress. The appeal to the insurgent 
was: 

"No bloody soldier must he dread; 
He must turn out and fight for bread." 7 

In dealing with these uprisings the government em- 



Era of Reaction and Repression 47 

ployed but one method, coercion, believing transgressors 
guilty of "levying war against the king." Its illiberal, 
unsympathetic attitude and policy were well revealed in 
the Peterloo incident. 

On Monday, Aug. 16, 18 19, there assembled on 
St. Peter's Field, Manchester, a peaceful mass-meeting, 
numbering in all, men, women and children, some 80,000, 
to hear speeches on political subjects, to discuss and adopt 
a plan for Parliamentary reform, and to choose a "legisla- 
torial representative." The leaders of the affair pub- 
licly admonished the meeting that no insult to anyone 
was to be permitted, and that no excuse whatever was 
to be given to the authorities for any attempted disturb- 
ance of the proceedings. But the local magistrates who 
had announced such a gathering to be illegal determined 
to disperse it. They had sworn in special constables and 
called into service several companies of infantry and six 
troops of cavalrymen. Just as Mr. Hunt, the orator 
of the occasion, was on the point of formally opening the 
proceedings the chief constable supported by some sol- 
diers pressed into the densely packed crowd seeking to 
wedge his way through to the speaker's platform, to 
serve on Mr. Hunt the warrant of arrest. But so closely 
jammed together were the people, the constable's little 
party could make poor headway, and soon became entirely 
surrounded, held fast by the crowd. They were not 
attacked nor were they in any danger, but some of the 
magistrates outside thought so, and losing their heads 
gave the order to the officer in command of the Hussars 
to disperse the crowd. At once the cavalry charged into 
the defenceless multitude with the result that five persons 
were killed outright; thirty more with serious wounds 
had to be carried to the hospitals, and another half hun- 



48 England's Progress 

dred were badly injured. This massacre of innocent peo- 
ple was generally deplored all over the country; but, 
strange to say, the central authorities endorsed the course 
of the magistrates and induced the Prince Regent to 
write them a letter of approval. The chief lesson drawn 
by the ministry from the lamentable occurrence was the 
necessity of strengthening the laws for suppression of 
sedition. They called an autumnal session of Parliament, 
and got it to pass by big majorities the repressive "Six 
Acts" mentioned above. These enactments mark the cul- 
mination and end of an era of harsh repressive legisla- 
tion. For five years, 18 15—1820, the lower classes had 
suffered much, and in their misery had caused the Gov- 
ernment no little trouble. In retaliation the Govern- 
ment had a number of the leaders of the populace exe- 
cuted for high treason; it suspended the Habeas Corpus 
Act, allowing arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of sus- 
pected revolutionists; it forbade the possession of fire- 
arms; 8 it jealously guarded against the least extension 
of the suffrage; it shackled the press; it limited the right 
of public assembly. These reactionary and repressive 
methods kept the country quieted for several years, but 
the peace was one of submission, not of satisfaction. 

REFERENCES 

i. Dicey: Law and Opinion in England, p. 62. 

2. Dicey: p. 106. 

3. Dicey: p. 98. 

4. Walpole: History of England Since 1815, Vol. I, p. 434. 

5. Hunt and Poole: Vol. 11, p. 171. 

6. Bright: Vol. 1689-1837, p. 1354. 

7. Walpole: Vol. 1, p. 366. 

8. Walpole: Vol. 1, p. 442. 



CHAPTER IV 

STRENGTHENING LIBERALISM AND PAR- 
LIAMENT REFORM, 1821-1832 

From 1 82 1 on the government's policy is less restric- 
tive and illiberal. Better harvests, cheaper bread, regu- 
lar employment, and the improved state of the manu- 
facturing interests made a more contented people. There 
was less popular disturbance and therefore less necessity 
for repressive laws. The French Revolution was reced- 
ing farther into the past, and there was less of Jacobin 
dread among the authorities. The Peterloo massacre 
eventually resulted in greater liberty for the people. In 
the trial of Hunt and some of his associates, who were 
arrested for their part in the Peterloo meeting, the at- 
tempt was made to prove them guilty of treason, which 
seemed possible according to the law as interpreted by 
Lord Eldon, the Chancellor. He held that the charge of 
treason could be maintained in that "numbers constituted 
force, and force terror, and terror illegality." But the 
judges who tried Hunt and his associates the year after 
their offenses were committed took a different view. The 
men were convicted of misdemeanors only, though Hunt 
himself was imprisoned for two years. The court's view 
made it certain that unless there is a special provision or 
law to the contrary, public political meetings are legal, 
however great the numbers of peaceful men who assem- 
ble. 1 The year 1821 marks the death or resignation of 
some of the older Tories, like Lord Sidmouth and Castle- 

49 



50 England's Progress 

reagh, and the rise to power of younger men of the Tory 
party such as Canning, Huskisson and Sir Robert Peel 
who were less averse to innovations than their predeces- 
sors in office. Under their leadership, slight domestic 
reforms were achieved and a radical change made in 
England's foreign policy. Huskisson, a believer in free 
trade, was successful in having some of the restrictive 
navigation laws removed in 1823, and in reducing the 
import duties in 1824 on raw materials for manufacture, 
such as wool and silk, to the benefit of both commerce 
and the textile interests. Peel began the reform of the 
criminal code by cutting down the long list of crimes 
punishable by death, reducing the list eventually to two 
offenses, viz., murder and treason. He reformed the 
police system of London, did good service in 18 19 in 
restoring the currency, and drew up the bills that com- 
pelled the Bank after 1823 to pay on demand all notes 
in legal coin. Canning led England a step forward in 
her foreign policy. 

For seven years, 1 8 15—1822, the members of the Holy 
Alliance, the Czar of Russia, Emperor of Austria, and 
King of Prussia with their reactionary Bourbon confed- 
erates of France and Spain and Naples were dominating 
Europe in the interest of absolutism. Whenever the 
Liberals of any state would force a constitution from 
their king or depose him, this confederacy would hold 
a congress, decide on military intervention in the state, 
and send out as their agent troops to suppress the popular 
uprising. They had supported Austria in suppressing 
such a movement in Naples, and backed France in a like 
interference in Spain. Castlereagh had acquiesced in 
these acts of the Holy Alliance, but Canning as Foreign 
Secretary announced a new policy. He threw his influ- 



Strengthening Liberalism 51 

ence against the Alliance. He withstood French inter- 
vention in Portugal; he supported the independence of 
the revolted Spanish colonies in America; and he did 
all he could to prevent Turkey from crushing Greece. 

In April, 1827, Canning reached the Premiership, only 
to occupy that high office for a few months. In attending 
the burial of the Duke of York which occurred on a bleak, 
cold day in the preceding January, he contracted an ill- 
ness that proved fatal. He died on the eighth of the 
following August. His successor in office was Lord 
Goderich, whose inefficient ministry lasted seven months 
only. In January 25, 1828, the Duke of Wellington was 
made Prime Minister, who held office until Nov. 22, 
1830. As head of the Government the Iron Duke pur- 
sued a very unusual course. Instead of resigning his 
office when defeated on an important measure in the 
House of Commons, he would change his opinions to 
suit the House, remain in office, and graciously yield the 
enactment of the bill desired by the Opposition. He 
made his first retreat in connection with the repeal of the 
Test and Corporation Acts. These acts required pro- 
fession of conformity to the Church of England for all 
members of corporations and holders of offices under the 
Crown. Wellington did not favor their abolition; but 
when he saw that a motion of the Whigs for a committee 
to consider the Acts commanded in the House of Com- 
mons a majority of forty-four votes, he and Peel, the 
Home Secretary, with other leaders of the Government, 
accepted this vote as practically decisive; and having 
declared themselves satisfied to substitute for the sacra- 
mental test in the laws, the requirement that a man when 
inducted into office must affirm that he would do nothing 
to injure the Church, supported the passage of the bill. 2 



52 England's Progress 

The repeal was vigorously contested in the House of 
Lords on the ground that the acts formed an important 
"defensive outwork of the union of Church and State," 
and the bill was not passed until its affirmation require- 
ment was altered by adding the phrase "upon the true 
faith of a Christian," which clause continued the exclu- 
sion of Jews from holding office. 

The Prime Minister's next retreat was in connection 
with the matter of Catholic Emancipation. Since 1800 
when Pitt had secured the Act of Union of Great Britain 
and Ireland, the Catholics of Ireland had been agitating 
for full political equality with Protestants, which Pitt 
would have given them at first had it not been for the 
obstinate refusal of the King, George III. Led by Daniel 
O'Connell they organized in 1823 the Catholic Associa- 
tion which soon had enrolled in its membership nearly 
all the Catholics of the country. The Association got 
up immense mass-meetings, and impressive demonstra- 
tions of every sort; sent orators over Ireland advocat- 
ing the Catholic cause; organized parochial clubs; drilled 
the people in processional marching and united the senti- 
ment and strength of the nation against the illiberal 
policy of the English government. The Association col- 
lected from its members an impost, called the "Catholic 
Rent," and in 1828 showed its political power by electing 
with an overwhelming majority O'Connell as their repre- 
sentative for the county of Clare. The sole barrier that 
would exclude O'Connell from Parliament was the oath 
he would have to take on entrance, since the election was 
altogether legal. The Association, under O'Connell's 
leading, at once planned the election of Catholic repre- 
sentatives for all the counties of Ireland, and began pledg- 
ing its members to resist Wellington's ministry until 



Strengthening Liberalism 53 

Catholic emancipation was granted, and to fight also for 
a reform of Parliament and for full religious and civil 
liberty. The Association planned to influence the gov- 
ernment by the use of moral means only; but still it 
seemed to have within it the possibility of mustering on 
its side if need be the physical strength of the whole 
Catholic population of Ireland. Among its supporters 
too were numbered the Catholics of Scotland and Eng- 
land, many of the Whigs, and some of the Tory party. 
Until 1829 Wellington, an Anglo-Irish Protestant by 
birth, had refused to give any consideration whatever to 
proposals for Catholic emancipation, showing himself to 
be in the matter as unbending an opponent as Liverpool 
or Eldon had ever been. But in that year Wellington 
and Peel came to the conclusion that civil war would 
occur in Ireland unless concessions were made. The min- 
istry announced therefore their intention to bring in a 
bill that would place Catholics on the plane of political 
equality with the members of the Church of England. 
The Relief Bill introduced experienced considerable re- 
sistance in passage. King George IV detested the con- 
cession; the bishops and many lay peers were obstinate; 
and a large proportion of the English population disliked 
the proposition. But with the aid of the Whigs the min- 
istry succeeded in its enactment. It established real po- 
litical equality between Catholics and Protestants. The 
Catholics of Great Britain were given the franchise; 
Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland were given 
entrance to Parliament; and Roman Catholics were 
"admitted to all municipal offices, to all judicial offices, 
except in the ecclesiastical courts, and to all political 
offices except the offices of Regent, of Lord Lieutenant 
of Ireland, and of Lord Chancellor in England and 



54 England's Progress 

Ireland." 3 Not long after the passage of the Relief 
Bill as many as fifty Irish Catholics, O'Connell among 
them, were holding seats in Parliament. 

In 1830, the year following that of the passage of 
the Relief Bill, Parliament was dissolved, and a new 
general election held on account of the death of the 
sovereign George IV. The "Sailor King" William IV, 
the only surviving brother of the former ruler, succeeded 
to the throne. He made a good constitutional king, 
for he believed the day was past when a ruler could "make 
himself an effective barrier against the movement of the 
times." 4 The reformers took heart and in the general 
election that followed won from the old Tory party more 
than fifty seats. In the English counties, where elections 
were freer than in the boroughs, sixty out of eighty-two 
members were returned by the Whigs. The election in- 
dicated that the nation expected Parliamentary reform to 
be undertaken, but when the subject was brought up, 
Wellington boldly and bluntly declared that England's 
legislative system was well nigh perfect, that he had 
no plan to offer for reform, and that "as long as he held 
any station in the government of the country he should 
always feel it his duty to resist such measures when pro- 
posed by others." 5 This frank statement of his con- 
viction in the matter was accepted by the Whigs and re- 
formers as a challenge, and on the next test vote the 
ministry was defeated by a majority of 29. Wellington 
now resigned, and the king appointed Charles Earl Grey, 
the Whig leader, Prime Minister. 

The cause of reform was strengthened at this time in 
England by the spread of democratic movements that 
year, 1830, in several foreign countries; especially by 
the revolution in France that substituted the Bourbon 



Strengthening Liberalism 55 

monarch, Charles I, for the citizen king, Louis Philippe. 
Charles had been dethroned by the people because he 
tried to rule arbitrarily through an ultra royalist min- 
istry, instead of constitutionally through a fairly elected 
representative chamber, and because in his contest with 
the people he had the impertinence and temerity to issue 
three intolerable ordinances; the first, suspending the 
freedom of the periodical press: the second, ordering the 
dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies; and the third, 
making alterations suiting the king in the constitution 
of the next chamber to be elected. Instead of obeying 
the royal orders the populace revolted, and securing the 
support of the disaffected national troops, forced the ab- 
dication of the king. The effects of the Paris revolution 
were felt at once all over Europe. There followed popu- 
lar uprisings in Italy, Germany, Spain and Portugal. 
The Belgians revolted against union with Holland, and 
the Poles against the despotic rule of the Russian Czar 
Nicholas I. In England it strongly influenced the gen- 
eral election of that year. 

The English reform movement had gained by this time 
the support of many men of substance, influence and edu- 
cation. Twelve years before the loudest and most active 
agitation was among the lower classes, day laborers 
and artisans; but the strength and direction of the move- 
ment came now from higher social groups, the manufac- 
turers, merchants, lawyers, school teachers, thrifty farm- 
ers, and the householders of independent means. Lead- 
ing statesmen had begun to accept the teachings of the 
political philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, who had published 
his sound views on the nature of government as early as 
1776. He had declared as correct fundamental principles : 
(1) "That the end of all government is utility, or the 



S& England's Progress 

good of the governed"; (2) that the greatest happiness 
of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and 
legislation"; and (3) that "every person is in the main 
and as a general rule, the best judge of his own happi- 
ness." 6 To acknowledge these principles was to confess 
that the British Constitution was very defective. Ben- 
tham's disciples were numerous and influential in 1830, 
and heartily supported the reform program. 

The system of Parliamentary representation was full 
of absurdities. Half of the members of the House of 
Commons obtained their seats by purchase or by the 
nomination of the proprietor of some great estate. 
Seats in the House of Commons were bought and sold 
openly, prices ranging from 3,000 to 30,000 pounds 
and the king a chief purchaser. The borough Woebly 
belonged to the Marquis of Bath, who just before an 
election would send down his servants to occupy for a 
few days the rickety old houses there, that they might 
qualify as voters and return his nominees on election day. 
The Duke of Rutland could return six members, Lord 
Lonsdale nine, and the Duke of Norfolk eleven. A 
county with a million of inhabitants like Yorkshire or 
Lancashire had no more representatives than the most 
sparsely settled county. The county of Cornwall had 
forty-two members lavished upon it, but the newly-grown 
populous industrial centres, like Leeds, Birmingham, and 
Manchester, each with a population numbering from 86,- 
000 to 133,000, and over a score of other towns with 
populations running from ten to twenty thousand had 
no representative at all. There were still representatives 
given though to decayed villages that were formerly in 
mediaeval times important seaports or market towns, 
but that in 1830 had neither houses nor inhabitants. The 



Strengthening Liberalism 57 

electoral power of a man varied most capriciously. Re- 
siding in one place he might be one of twenty electors 
sending a delegate to the House of Commons; residing 
in another, he might be one of a hundred or a thousand 
voters. About one out of every forty-eight persons had 
a vote. These indefensible anomalies in the representa- 
tive system were due to the fact that the constitution of 
the House of Commons had experienced little change for 
over two hundred years. 

Since the calling of the "Model Parliament" by Ed- 
ward I in 1295, the rule had been, with but a few ex- 
ceptions, that each county and each borough should have 
two representatives in the elected national legislative as- 
sembly. The small and sparsely settled counties and 
boroughs of Wales secured only one member each : Lon- 
don got four. Since Edward's day a few insignificant 
boroughs had lost the right of returning a representative, 
but numerous other places, many of them unimportant 
villages, had been created boroughs and given representa- 
tives in the House of Commons in order to increase the 
influence of the Crown in national legislation. One hun- 
dred and eighty borough members were added to the 
Commons between the coming to the throne of Henry 
VIII in 1509 and the death of Charles II in 1685. A 
town when first receiving representation in Parliament 
may have been a place of considerable size and impor- 
tance, but though in succeeding years it dwindled in popu- 
lation until it lacked a dozen inhabitants, yet it continued 
to possess its two members in the House of Commons. 
A village settlement of little importance in the fourteenth 
century, might become in the eighteenth century a vast 
city, and still be unrepresented. There was an undue 
and unfair excess of borough over county members in 



58 England** Progress 

Parliament. The qualifications for voting, which had 
remained practically unaltered for generations, needed 
thoroughgoing revision. The county Parliamentary 
franchise was confined to free-holders of land worth 
forty shillings a year, but as during the eighteenth 
century many small estates had been swallowed up 
in the large estates, there were only a few such free- 
holders, men owning outright pieces of land. The pros- 
perous copy-holders, the industrious tenant-farmers and 
lease-holders who cultivated nine-tenths of the land, and 
the great body of hired laborers tilling the soil had 
no votes. 7 As to the borough franchise, it exhibited ex- 
traordinary variety from town to town, having been deter- 
mined by the history and character of the settlement. In 
some of the boroughs every resident freeman or every 
householder had a vote; in others only the town council- 
lors who represented a close corporation rilling their own 
vacancies had votes; and between these extremes there 
existed every conceivable intermediate system. Some 
modifications of the franchise had occurred since the 
accession of the Tudors but in the direction of restrict- 
ing, not extending, the suffrage, qualifications for voting 
being less liberal under George III (1760-1820) than 
under Edward III (1327-1377). 

"Where the suffrage was confined to burgage holds, 
the real property of the place was acquired by wealthy 
individuals who conferred on friends, relations, or de- 
pendents, the right of property during the period of elec- 
tion. If the corporation had the right of election, the 
influence of the neighboring landed proprietor was often 
sufficient to secure that its members, whose trade perhaps 
depended on his good-will, should yield him practically 
the patronage of the borough. Where the freeman 



Strengthening Liberalism 59 

shared in the vote, the freedom of a borough was seldom 
conferred on any individual on whose support the influ- 
ential landowner could not depend, and if any ventured 
upon a course of Independence, the pliant majority were 
ready to create new freemen for the express purpose of 
turning the election. In the open boroughs money was 
expended in every kind of bribery." 8 The rights of 
persons unfavorable to the man of influence were de- 
feated sometimes by omitting to rate them to pay the 
parish taxes. At the close of the eighteenth century there 
were in Parliament as many as 90 members of the House 
of Commons returned from 46 boroughs with not more 
than 50 voters; there were 81 members practically named 
by 40 peers; there were 150 members nominated by mem- 
bers of the House of Lords, and as many as 350 were re- 
turned through the influence and control of as few as 180 
individuals. 

Such were some of the injustices that Lord Grey's min- 
istry sought to remove in their famous Reform Bill of 
March 1, 1 83 1. Its introduction into the House of Com- 
mons was entrusted to Lord John Russell, a noble scion 
of a prominent Whig family, and a leader long identified 
with the movement for Parliamentary reform. The bill 
was thoroughgoing, the ministers being convinced that 
nothing less than a great measure would satisfy the na- 
tion. It proposed to abolish three chief evils: (1) nomi- 
nation of members by patrons; (2) election of members 
by the oligarchic town councils or close corporations; 
(3) the costliness and corruption of elections. 9 It 
planned a redistribution of the seats on a fairer basis, 
taking representation away from the decayed villages and 
bestowing it on the hitherto unrepresented, newly grown 
prosperous towns; and it sought to simplify the voting 



60 England's Progress 

system, to establish a uniform borough franchise, and to 
make the franchise for both county and borough similar 
in principle. It was not a democratic measure by any 
means, but it proposed an important extension of the suf- 
frage, possibly enlarging the electorate by about one 
half a million voters. 

So far-reaching was the measure in its proposals that 
it excited at once the enthusiastic support of all friends 
and the bitterest opposition of all enemies of reform. 
The passage of the bill was hotly contested at every step. 
The proposed reform was described as a "revolution 
that will overturn all the natural influence of rank and 
property." It was denied that representation in origin 
was connected in its determination with the number of 
the population or with taxation; it was claimed that the 
rotten boroughs, and close boroughs, whose members 
could be nominated by patrons were serviceable in bring- 
ing young talent into Parliament, or good as refugees 
for distinguished members who had lost support in their 
own constituencies; it was affirmed that the proposal to 
abolish so many seats was nothing less than robbery, "a 
new Pride's purge." It was declared that England's 
form of government, as it then stood, was a model of 
perfection, and that the experience of all history had not 
produced a better one. 

So numerous were the representatives of the rotten 
boroughs, and so resolved were they in withstanding 
their own destruction, that the ministry found they could 
not carry their measure without an appeal to the country 
through a new election. In a full house the Bill on its 
second reading passed by only one vote, 302 to 301, 
which convinced Lord Grey that he could not carry the 
reform through with so small a majority. He offered 



Strengthening Liberalism 61 

to resign, but the King, William IV, would not accept 
it, preferring to dissolve Parliament, and to give the na- 
tion a chance to speak its mind. The new elections were 
conducted in the midst of unparalleled popular agita- 
tion, and resulted in returning a House in which the min- 
isters could command a majority of 136. The Bill was 
again introduced September, 1831, and in the same month 
went through all three readings in the Commons, finally 
passing with a majority of 106. Lacking in argument 
the opposition had resorted to obstructive tactics, repeat- 
ing over and over the same speeches, and making dilatory 
motions. "In fourteen days Peel had spoken 48, Crocker 
57 and Wetherell 58 times." 10 In the Upper House, 
the Lords, tenacious of their privileges, rejected the bill, 
and their action brought the country to the verge of civil 
war. The newspapers were filled with indignant re- 
monstrances; there was talk of undertaking to abolish 
hereditary titles and ending the House of Lords; among 
the lower classes riots broke out necessitating the calling 
out of troops; enormous mass-meetings attended by tens 
of thousands were being held all over the country and 
from these and hundreds of political organizations went 
up the cry "The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the 
Bill." Parliament was now prorogued, but when it reas- 
sembled in December Lord John Russell introduced again, 
December 12, 1832, his third Reform Bill. This passed 
the Lower House March 23, 1832, by a majority of 116. 
In the Upper House, the Lords this time, instead of 
rejecting the measure, planned to pass it but with serious* 
mutilations. Whereupon Lord Grey once more resigned, 
knowing well, however, that no Tory ministry the King 
could appoint would be able to conduct the government 
as affairs then stood. But William IV accepted Grey's 



62 England's Progress 

resignation and led the Duke of Wellington to try for 
a week, but in vain, to form a cabinet. Wellington and 
his colleagues in the Tory party feared civil war and 
rightly believed that the troops could not be depended 
on to face the angry people. The Duke advised the King 
to call back Lord Grey, which was done. But Grey, be- 
fore he would accept office again, secured from His Ma- 
jesty this written promise: 

"The King grants permission to Earl Grey and to his 
Chancellor, Lord Brougham, to create such a number of 
peers as will be sufficient to insure the passing of the Re- 
form Bill." 1X This threat ended all resistance in the 
House of Lords. The new peers were not created, but 
the bill became law June 4, 1832, Wellington and about 
100 of the Lords who opposed the bill purposely absent- 
ing themselves at its passage. 

The Reform Act as finally passed wholly disfranchised 
56 boroughs having less than 2000 inhabitants, and took 
away one representative from each of 32 boroughs 
having less than 4000 inhabitants. The seats thus ob- 
tained were redistributed, of which 44 went to large 
towns or districts of London, each place receiving two 
members; 21 to towns of less consequence, each place 
receiving one member; 6$ were added to the counties; 
8 were given to Scotland and 5 to Ireland. The total 
membership of the House remained as before 658. 

As to suffrage, the act established a uniform borough 
franchise, the right to vote being given to all 10 pound 
householders, that is to those "who own or rent any 
house, shop or building of an annual rental with the land 
of 10 pounds." In the counties votes were given to copy- 
holders and lease-holders, that is "to farmers and tenants 
of land whose tenure was for sixty years, and of the an- 



Strengthening Liberalism 63 

nual value of ten pounds, and to tenants-at-will holding 
land worth fifty pounds a year." 12 Formerly only those 
who owned land outright had the franchise. The Act 
enfranchised the middle class, but not the artisans of 
towns nor laborers of the counties. The passage of the 
Reform Bill diminished the power of the landed interests 
in government, and it established two important consti- 
tutional principles : ( 1 ) The House of Lords cannot re- 
sist the House of Commons, when the latter truly voices 
the will of the nation; (2) The Sovereign of England 
must yield to the advice of his ministers on a question of 
vital import to the state. 

REFERENCES 

1. McCarthy: Modern England before the Reform Bill, p. 87. 

2. Bright: History of England, Vol. 1 689-1 837, p. 1401. 

3. Montague: Elements of Constitutional History of England, 

p. 198. 

4. McCarthy: Modern England before the Reform Bill, p. 203. 

5. McCarthy: Epoch of Reform, p. 44. 

6. Dicey: Law and Opinion in England, p. 145. 

7. Montague: p. 205. 

8. Paul: History of Reform, p. 131. 

9. McCarthy: Epoch of Reform, p. 53. 

10. Hazen: Europe Since 1815, p. 435. 

11. Hazen: Europe Since 1815, p. 436. 

12. Hazen: p. 437. 



CHAPTER V 

PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION 

1833-1845 

The Reform Bill of 1832 completely ousted the "bor- 
ough-mongering Tory oligarchy" from authority and 
gave control of the government into the hands of the 
Whigs for several decades. Immediately preceding 
1830, the year Grey's Whig ministry came into office, 
the Tories had enjoyed an almost uninterrupted suprem- 
acy for forty-six years, but during the forty-four years just 
after 1830, they were in power not quite eight years. 
They found it to their advantage later to change their 
party name and began calling themselves "Conserva- 
tives." The Whigs, later called Liberals, were given a 
long lease of power because they were active promoters 
of additional reforms. The changes they sought to make 
were not, however, constitutional in character but chiefly 
social and economic. They differed from the Radicals in 
that they had no intention or desire to experiment with 
democratic projects. Favorable to the Whigs also was 
the accession of Victoria to the throne at the death of 
her uncle William IV, June 30, 1837. The young ruler 
had been well instructed by her teacher and adviser Lord 
Melbourne in the Whig doctrines of limited monarchy, 
parliamentary sovereignty and ministerial responsibility. 
, The first notable work of the Reformed Parliament 
was the passage of an act for the emancipation of the 

64 



Progressive Legislation 6$ 

slaves in the British colonies. The negroes, numbering 
over 750,000, represented many millions of pounds of 
property owned by the most respectable and politically 
influential families of England, and through their labor 
was maintained a lucrative market for British goods. In 
1833 one-fifteenth part of British exports were pur- 
chased by the West Indian Islands; in 18 14 one-sixth part 
nearly had been taken by them. Slavery had a host of 
defenders, and numerous and varied were their argu- 
ments in support of the institution. They avowed that 
the colonies with free laborers would not compete with 
other places using slave-labor; that England had no 
right to rob certain of her colonies of an institution which 
formed the very basis of their strength and welfare; 
that to abolish slavery in colonies in direct contradiction 
to their desire as expressed in their local assemblies was 
an unwarranted and unconstitutional interference in 
their government; that it was unfair to the negroes who 
were better off in bondage than in freedom, for "who," 
it was asked, "is to feed these poor creatures if removed 
from the protection of their masters?"; that negroes 
would not render earnest labor except under compulsion, 
and that if they were freed, their places could not be 
taken by Europeans because they were unfit to toil in the 
sweltering heat of the tropical sugar, rice or cotton-fields ; 
that emancipation would be followed by insurrections of 
the negroes; that the government could not justly thus 
interfere with the sacred rights of property; that the 
negroes on the West Indian plantations were better 
treated than the young workers in English factories and 
mines, and that it was right and sensible to correct labor 
conditions at home before attempting to do so for islands 
beyond the Atlantic Ocean; that the reports of ill-treat- 



66 England's Progress 

ment of slaves circulated by the abolitionists were exag- 
gerations, and that it was to the interest of slave owners 
to care for their property, not destroy it, and that it was 
reasonable to believe that they did so. 

These arguments of the planters seem weak enough to- 
day, but it took a half century of labor and agitation 
on the part of the abolitionists and humanitarians to 
overthrow the system supported by them. Prominent 
among those who espoused the cause of the slaves were 
Ramsey who in 1784 published a book on the cruelties 
of the slave trade that excited wide interest; Lady Mid- 
dleton whose influence was largely instrumental in hav- 
ing the subject brought to the attention of Parliament; 
William Wilberforce, a man of high birth, considerable 
fortune, philanthropic nature, and earnest Christian faith, 
who from 1787 to the end of his life in 1833, was active 
both within and without Parliament in waging the anti- 
slavery crusade; Granville Sharp, who in 1772 obtained 
the first decision that slavery was illegal in England, and 
under whose presidency was formed in London in 1787 
the "Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade"; 
Thomas Clarkson who gained a prize at Cambridge for 
an essay on slavery, published in 1786, and who was of 
great service in collecting valuable data for Wilberforce 
to use in the House of Commons; Brougham, who carried 
an act in 1 8 1 1 making it a felony to engage in the slave 
trade which gave effectiveness to the act passed in 1807 
under Grenville's administration that prohibited the slave 
trade after Jan. 1, 1808, and who in 1830 when probably 
the most powerful member in the House of Commons 
made bold advocacy of the cause of abolition in a telling 
oration that placed emancipation among questions of first- 
rate importance in practical politics ; Thomas Fowell Bux- 



Progressive Legislation 67 

ton, member of a Quaker Family, a distinguished gradu- 
ate of Dublin University and a member of the African 
Institution which watched over the law that abolished 
the slave-trade, a man whose views in the matter appear 
in his first resolution on the subject introduced, though 
not passed, in Parliament in 1823, which declared "that 
the state of slavery was repugnant to the principles of 
the British Constitution and of the Christian religion, 
and that it ought to be abolished throughout the British 
Colonies, with as much expedition as may be found con- 
sistent with due regard to the well-being of the parties 
concerned"; 1 Zachary Macaulay, father of the historian, 
who resigned the management of an estate in the West 
Indies because of his dislike of slavery, who had been one 
of the leaders in an unsuccessful attempt to found the 
Sierra Leone Colony, which was intended to be an asylum 
for freed negroes and a trading centre for developing 
the resources of Africa; and who gave two years of la- 
bor to the collection of a body of facts concerning the 
actual working of the slave system in the colonies, which 
material furnished weapons for Buxton's use in Parlia- 
ment; and Lord Stanley, who, as the Colonial Secretary, 
led in carrying, as a ministerial bill, the great abolition 
measure of August, 1833. 

The Emancipation Act abolished slavery in the Brit- 
ish Empire by purchase. The law took effect August I, 
1834. Children of 6 years of age and under were im- 
mediately freed; the rest, while emancipated, were yet 
apprenticed from 5 to 7 years for three-fourths of their 
time to their former masters. The planters were paid 
for their losses the handsome sum of 20,000,000 pounds, 
not a few of them being enriched by the exchange. The 
apprentice provision was in time disregarded. 



68 England's Progress 

The Parliament that severed the bonds of the black 
laborers of the West Indies could not fail to recognize 
a duty owed to the white laborers, slaving it in British 
factories. After the introduction of machinery into the 
weaving and spinning industries, the children were soon 
crowded into the mills, because with machines to do the 
heavier tasks of manufacture they could perform the 
lighter operations equally as well as adults, and yet would 
have to be paid hardly one-tenth as much in wages. Lazy 
parents sent their children into the factories to get their 
earnings. The local authorities of cities and towns who 
had to look after the offspring of the destitute and pauper 
classes were eager to apprentice dependent children to the 
manufacturers for a number of years in order to lighten 
the burden of the poor rates, and to remove the young 
from the degrading influence of pauperized parents. The 
general result was that boys and girls by the thousands 
and of tenderest years, who if living to-day would be 
found in the primary grades at school, were swept into 
the mills. The London local officials repeatedly sent 
out wagonloads of these children to be apprenticed to 
the mill owners of Lancashire. 

"The majority of the factory children did not begin 
work until nine years of age, but a great many began at 
seven and some at six and even five." 2 The regular 
working day was for twelve hours, in some quarters thir- 
teen; and since in many factories all losses of time due 
to stoppage of machinery had to be made up by extra 
work, the day was frequently prolonged to fourteen hours 
and occasionally to sixteen. Half-hour intervals were 
allowed for dinner and tea, but these brief recesses were 
for cleaning the machinery as well as for eating meals. 
It was calculated that in performing their monotonous 



Progressive Legislation 69 

tasks back and forth in attending their machines some of 
the children had to walk in a day a distance of twenty 
miles. They were surrounded by a vicious moral atmos- 
phere, were given no education worth the name, were 
often cuffed and kicked about by older operatives of 
brutal character, were sometimes maimed for life by 
the unfenced-off machinery, and were early robbed of 
their bodily vigor because denied their share of sunshine 
and pure air. The physical and moral health of the girls 
and young women especially suffered, a deterioration of 
future motherhood that involved a deterioration of race. 
These evils of unregulated factory life had deeply im- 
pressed the minds of a few philanthropists for some years 
previous to 1833, and since the opening of the century 
their efforts had achieved one or two slight reforms. 
Owing to the occurrence of a fearful epidemic due it was 
believed to the unsanitary state of the mills, and the 
weakened condition of the young operatives, a law was 
enacted in 1802, which applied, however, only to factories 
having apprenticed children, that "required the walls 
of the mills to be whitewashed, restricted hours of labour 
to twelve a day, and forbade beginning work before 
six o'clock in the morning and continuing it beyond nine 
o'clock at night." 3 In 18 16 Robert Peel was instru- 
mental in having passed a law, applying though to cotton 
factories only, that limited the working day to twelve 
hours; and later the working child was given by law a 
fourth of a holiday on each Saturday. The laws did 
not apply to the wool and silk mills where a host of boys 
and girls laboured; they were easily evaded by managers 
of the special mills to which the regulations did apply; 
and yet when fully kept, they allowed a little child to 
be worked as many as sixty-eight hours a week. 



70 England's Progress 

This was all the protection the state gave the factory 
child until 1833, and yet when in this year, and at later 
dates, the humanitarians undertook to give more they met 
with vigorous opposition from many quarters. Lord 
Shaftesbury, who was the most prominent and influential 
supporter of the factory movement and whose religion 
led him to devote his long life to philanthropic labors, 
wrote in his private diary of the hostility he incurred 
when urging a Ten Hours Bill in 1847. "I bad to break 
every political connection, to encounter a most formid- 
able array of capitalists, mill-owners, doctrinaries, and 
men who by natural impulse hate all 'humanity-mon- 
gers.' " 4 He named among those who then opposed the 
reform the able statesmen, Gladstone, O'Connell, 
Brougham, Cobden and Bright. To undertake to regulate 
hours of labor was declared by the political economists 
an injurious interference with the natural laws of trade. 
It was urged that such restrictions would destroy the 
profits of the manufacturing interest, would cause de- 
creased wages, less employment, and the shutting down 
of factories to the great injury of the working people, 
would drive capital from England and would give an 
advantage to foreign over home manufacturers. To 
place a compulsory limitation upon the time of willing, 
industrious laborers was declared a rank injustice, a 
patent violation of the recognized right of freedom of 
contract, but it was suggested also, apparently on the 
principle that "idleness is the devil's workshop" that 
hours of leisure might prove a disadvantage to the mor- 
als of ignorant factory operatives. The proposed re- 
strictions were objected to also on the ground of their 
general inequality of effects, for it was seen to be im- 
possible to make a law that would affect alike different 



Progressive Legislation 71 

kinds of business. But stronger than the laissez-faire 
theories of the economists and the views of the individual 
and doctrinaries were human sympathy and the social 
conscience. The findings of a Royal Commission in 
1833, appointed to investigate factory conditions, placed 
it beyond question that the lot of these young people was 
inexcusably hard and dreary. The nation's heart was 
stirred by the revelation; and in alleviation Parliament 
passed the important act of 1833. The law prohibited 
a child under 9 years of age from being employed at all 
in textile factories generally, and forbade after 1835 a 
child between 9 and 13 being worked over 8 hours a day, 
and all children under 18 being required to work for 
more than 69 hours a week. It made modest provi- 
sions for the children's recreation and schooling, imposed 
on the factories a few sanitary regulations, and, better 
still, provided for the appointment of inspectors, whose 
duty was to see that the requirements of the law were 
observed. 

The act is noteworthy. In it the state recognized a 
responsibility connected with the education of its children. 
Its inspection feature was of value not only in enforc- 
ing the law, but also in providing reports which gave the 
information necessary for making later improvements 
in the measure. It marks a distinct advance on the part 
of the state in dealings with labor. For a long period 
the chief duty the government seemed to consider it 
owed to laborers was to compel them to work, to stay 
at home and to be satisfied with customary wages; after- 
wards the government, under the belief that all legal 
restrain on freedom of contract was harmful, gave the 
laborer perfect liberty to go anywhere and to work 
for whom or what he pleased, leaving him to take the 



72 England's Progress 

full consequence of his acts ; and this consequence, owing 
to his improvident and economic dependence, turned out 
not infrequently to be virtual slavery, as was the case with 
the factory employees. But in the law of 1833 the gov- 
ernment changed again its position, and now recognized 
an obligation to furnish protection to laborers not in 
the interest of the laboring class only, but for the good 
of society as well. This position the state has occupied 
ever since. The work of the early humanitarians, Oas- 
tler, Owen, Sadler, Southey, Coleridge, Fielding and 
Shaftesbury have continued to bear fruitage up into the 
very present, the reform of 1833 being but the first of a 
long series of factory and mines acts extending through- 
out the century. In the enforcement of the voluminous 
protective labor code of to-day are employed a host of 
inspectors, certified managers, medical men, and members 
of district councils, and various officials local and central. 
Governmental regulation of industrial pursuits is now a 
well established principle of English law, and generally 
accepted. 

In the year 1834 Parliament effected another much 
needed reform, that of the Poor Law System. "Sturdy 
beggars" had received the attention of the English legis- 
lature as early as the days of the Tudors. According 
to an act passed in the reign of Henry VIII the able- 
bodied beggar was to be "whipped for the first offense; 
to have his right ear cropped for the second offense; 
and to be imprisoned, tried, and if convicted to suffer 
death as the enemy of the commonwealth for the third 
offense." Another law enacted under Edward VI or- 
dered the idle and vagabond to be "branded with a V, 
and to be adjudged a slave for two years. If he ran away 
he was to be branded with an S, and to be a slave for 



Progressive Legislation 73 

life." 5 Under Elizabeth in 1601 a statute was made 
which, seeking to check vagrancy and mendicancy, drew 
a clear distinction between aged and impotent persons 
too weak to work, and the lazy ones able but unwilling 
to work. The former class were to have, as a right, 
relief from the parish rates; the latter were to be set 
to work. To the tramps punishment was to be meted 
out. The principle was right but the statute was poorly 
administered. Shocked at the discomforts of the inmates 
of the poor houses, Parliament in the latter year of the 
eighteenth century in the period of warfare with America 
and France began sanctioning the system of relieving 
the poor in their homes; and of allowing from taxes 
"grants in aid of wages." Two ill-advised measures 
passed during the reign of George III were ( 1 ) the Gil- 
bert Act of 1782 which allowed the guardians of the 
poor in a parish to find for the unemployed applicant 
for aid work near his house, 6 and to "add to his wages 
from the parish funds" if his earnings were insufficient 
for his maintenance; and (2) the "sliding scale act" of 
1795 designed to establish an insured minimum wage for 
the laborers, which gave to the distressed person more 
money just as the price of bread rose higher, and which 
proportioned the size of the grant to the size of the 
family, the greater the number of children the larger 
the amount of aid assured. The measures were soon at- 
tended with most disastrous consequences. Many em- 
ployers of labor began to pay less than subsistence 
wages, since it was seen that the laborer could depend 
on getting a dole from the parish funds for his support. 
With general wages thus reduced, numerous laborers, 
finding themselves faring worse than those dependent on 
the rates, were led to declare themselves in need of relief 



74 England's Progress 

money. The vast majority of the rural population losing 
self-reliance, were drawn into the whirlpool of pauper- 
ism. Early and improvident marriages were encouraged 
and profligacy and illegitimacy were fostered. Relief 
once obtained seemed to be regarded as a vested interest 
to be handed down from father to son. Much of the 
relief was spent for intoxicants in the dramshops. There 
were corruption and jobbery among officials handling the 
funds, the rates being used to influence the electors of 
parliamentary boroughs, and bribes being paid to the 
parish officers by the shop-keepers in order to get the 
pauper trade. Thieves, criminals, prostitutes, were often 
the recipients of relief. Under the baneful influence of 
the system, the poor rates steadily increased, mounting 
from 2,500,000 pounds in 1795 to 7,000,000 pounds in 
1833. The financial burden of the system grew intoler- 
able, and in 1834 the reform came. The new law, born 
out of the investigation and report of a Royal Commis- 
sion that had labored on the problem two years, was 
sound in principle and corrective in effect. Distinguish- 
ing sharply and clearly between poverty and pauperism, 
the Commission recommended that "out-door relief," that 
is relief at home, should be given only to the aged and 
destitute, and that the able-bodied applicants should only 
get relief, excepting the form of medical attendance, by 
becoming an inmate of a work-house. They advised also 
the separation of wives from their husbands, and children 
from their parents while in the work-house, and that the 
burden of caring for an illegitimate child should be 
thrown on the mother. They proposed further a thor- 
oughgoing reform of the administrative machinery of 
the poor-laws, by grouping parishes into unions, by con- 
centration and improvement of the work-houses, by trans- 



Progressive Legislation 75 

ferring the control hitherto exercised by magistrates, to 
guardians elected by the rate-payers, and by the forma- 
tion of a central poor-law board of three commissioners 
to control and direct the whole system. The new scheme 
being elastic, having three sources of law-making, Par- 
liament, the central Local Government Board, and the 
local Board of Guardians has in large part survived to 
the present. Its benefits were immediate and marked. 
At the time of the formation of the unions a district 
of four unions with a population of 41,409 inhabitants 
had 954 able-bodied paupers, but as early as June, 1836, 
there were only five. In one county, Sussex, there were 
6160 paupers when the reform was made, but in less 
than two years the number was reduced to 124. By 
1836 the rates were reduced in 22 counties on the aver- 
age of 433/2 per cent. The decrease of illegitimate births 
was phenomenal, being 10,000 or 13 per cent in two 
years. 7 

A thoroughgoing measure, of reform gained by the 
Whigs in 1835 was the Municipal Corporations Act. 
The municipalities in origin seem to have been little 
settlements of tradesmen, who in mediaeval times when 
most laborers were serfs, had gathered in some enclosed 
or secure place in order to carry on their trades or busi- 
ness with greater liberty and success. Finding that no 
man whose time, person, or property could be commanded 
by another was able to prosper in a trade, they soon 
began to resist all outside control, disclaiming in an inde- 
pendent spirit feudal obligations to neighboring lords, 
and eventually succeeded in winning, sometimes by force, 
sometimes by purchase, their full freedom. The burgh- 
ers decreed freedom for their children, for those per- 
sons who had served their full apprenticeship under a 



7 6 England's Progress 

free man, and for those who married the daughters of 
a free man. Collected at one centre with common inter- 
ests, they were soon holding meetings of the freemen to 
determine on measures of united action for the common 
good. With an increasing population, however, it be- 
came inconvenient and unsatisfactory to assemble the 
whole body of freemen whenever public affairs were to 
be discussed and regulated, and in time the management 
of the community's life was entrusted to committees. 
These committees gradually built up the towns, but they 
also gradually acquired all governmental authority. Un- 
der the Tudor sovereigns who wanted to conciliate these 
centres of industry, some of which had representatives 
in the Commons, many of these towns were able to secure 
charters of incorporation, and in most cases charters 
that lessened popular government. The corporation, 
which virtually meant the ruling body, could limit the 
number of freemen, and in the majority of the towns the 
mass of the inhabitants became at length unfree. Of 
Liverpool's population numbering 165,000 souls, only 
5000 were free, and of Portsmouth's 46,000 only 102. 8 
When the corporation increased the number of freemen, 
only those were added who would be apt to further the 
political and material interests of those already in author- 
ity or who would support a particular candidate for the 
borough's seat in Parliament. Honorary freemen were 
often created by the corporation who were non-residents, 
and only visited the towns on election days. Such indi- 
viduals, though termed "freemen," were merely servile 
underlings casting their votes at the behest of some po- 
litical superior, who was in a position to confer gifts or 
favors. In many towns exemptions from tolls, exclusive 
rights of pasturage in fields belonging to the corpora- 



Progressive Legislation 77 

tion, and special rights in the charitable funds, were be- 
stowed on the freemen. In some small boroughs, every- 
thing practically had been put in the hands of the mayor. 
No accounts were rendered; all was done in secret. 
The funds of the municipality were squandered in ban- 
quets, in paying the unearned salaries attached to use- 
less offices held by the friends and relatives of the coun- 
cilmen. Valuable public contracts and property were let 
to councilmen at figures highly profitable to themselves, 
and much of the money granted for objects of local util- 
ity quickly found its way to private pockets. Of taxes 
raised in some boroughs 92 per cent came from the 
unenfranchised, 8 per cent from voters. Grave evils 
existed in the judicial system of some of the towns, 
illiterate magistrates presiding over courts that possessed 
the power of pronouncing even death sentences. 

The act of 1835, presented by John Russell, was far- 
reaching in its effect. It affected an aggregate popula- 
tion of 2,000,000 people, and imposed on 183 boroughs, 
London excepted, a uniform system of government. The 
one supreme authority, placed in control of every depart- 
ment of the local government, was the town council, 
consisting of mayor, aldermen and councillors. The 
councillors were to be elected for three years' term of 
office by the resident rate payers, the right to vote being 
given to those who had paid taxes, during the three years 
preceding, and to those who rented property worth 10 
pounds the year. The aldermen were to be elected by 
the councillors for 6 years' term of office, and the coun- 
cillors and aldermen together were to elect the mayor 
who was to hold office for one year only. The proceed- 
ings of the council were to be public, and all accounts had 
to be audited. The bill provided that exclusive trading 



78 England's Progress 

privileges should be abolished and that the management 
of the charitable funds should be entrusted to a specially 
appointed board of trustees. It declared the corpora- 
tion to consist of the council and the constituency, and 
the management of the borough funds to belong to the 
whole body collectively. The general result of the re- 
form was to restore self-government in the boroughs, 
and to give control of public affairs to the substantial 
middle class. 

Of the many significant reforms achieved during the 
period under consideration, none was more far-reach- 
ing and beneficial than that of the repeal of the corn laws. 
These measures formed the basis of England's tariff sys- 
tem, and their repeal meant the eventual fall of the entire 
artificial structure of protection. The laws placed high 
duties on different sorts of imported grain and other food 
products : were passed for the benefit of landlords, and 
were in origin largely the fruit of the teachings of the 
seventeenth century political economists, who held it to 
be an essential of right national policy to protect land. 
From the days of Henry VI encouragement had been 
given to agriculture at various times by means of placing 
bounties on exports, or duties on imports of grain. The 
most recent corn laws belonged in spirit to the age of com- 
mercial restrictions and of state interference in trade ex- 
isting before the nation had learned Adam Smith's free 
trade principles and Jeremy Bentham's views concerning 
the benefits of individualism and freedom of contract. 
They formed a chief part of a system of protective legis- 
lation that was extended until by 1842 it had placed tariff 
duties on no less than 1200 articles. In 18 15 excessively 
high corn duties were placed with the purpose of assist- 
ing the farming interests to recover from the depression 



Progressive Legislation 79 

and losses that followed from the era of foreign war. 
Corn laws were passed in 1822 and 1828 and a sliding 
scale of duties was introduced, which provided a varying 
tariff, so that when the price of wheat grown at home was 
lowered the duty advanced and when it rose above a 
certain figure the duty was lessened. Parliament seems 
to have enacted such legislation in the hope of making 
the price of grain more stable, which did not turn out 
to be the case, however; and also in the belief that to 
insure the agriculturist a good remunerative price for 
his produce was to confer a blessing on the whole coun- 
try. But as these measures made bread high, a result 
apparent and painful to the masses in times of scant 
harvests and of business depression, and as they restricted 
commerce and the purchase of English manufactured 
goods by foreign countries, a result injurious to the inter- 
ests of the shippers and captains of industry, the benefi- 
cent nature of the laws began soon to be questioned by 
many. As a result in 1839 was formed at Manchester 
the Anti-Corn Law League. Cobden, Bright, Villiers, 
Wilson, and Potter were among the indefatigable work- 
ers of the League, some of whom, it is said, for the next 
six years met in counsel twice a day for promoting the 
purposes of their organization. Its financial support 
steadily increased from year to year, the subscriptions 
to the League rising from 5,000 pounds in 1839 to 2 5°>- 
000 pounds in 1845. The order discountenanced alto- 
gether the use of violent means to influence legislation, 
and made its appeal to the nation through persuasive 
argument solely. To the manufacturer, it said, throwing* 
open the ports will make it possible for foreign countries 
to buy our factory products with their farm products; 
and that English manufacturing interests, having an ad- 



80 England's Progress 

vantage over other countries in fuel, machinery and me- 
chanical processes, could compete successfully with for- 
eign manufactures, did not need protection, and would 
acquire foreign markets for their wares; to the ship- 
owners and merchants, it showed that free trade meant 
more freightage, and greater commerce generally; to 
the laborer, that it would insure steady employment and 
at better wages in the factories; to the agriculturist, that 
the losses sustained on corn would be more than com- 
pensated for by the increased ability of all classes, grow- 
ing out of the national prosperity, to purchase farm prod- 
ucts; and to all the people it said the price of bread 
would be lowered. One plain argument it employed was 
to have bakers offer to customers taxed, and untaxed 
shilling loaves. In 1840 it distributed 160,000 circulars 
and 150,000 pamphlets and had its speakers to deliver 
as many as 400 lectures. 9 

In a few years the educational campaign began to tell 
in politics. Hostile newspapers admitted that "The 
League was a great fact"; more free traders appeared 
in Parliament ; and the leaders of the two great parties, 
Russell and Peel, began to show signs of change of views. 
In 1842 when preparing a tariff measure Peel had re- 
fused outright to receive a deputation from the Anti- 
Corn Law League but by 1845 ne h aa * come himself to ac- 
cept at heart the tenets of the association. He had come 
to believe that as a matter of abstract principle protective 
duties were injurious, and that to sell in the dearest and 
buy in the cheapest markets was the correct rule. But 
while his free trade sympathies were strengthening he 
was not yet of the opinion that as a matter of practical 
statesmanship and sound just policy the corn laws should 
be at once abolished. He was shortly forced, however, 



Progressive Legislation 81 

to take a more advanced position by foreboding news 
from Ireland. Approaching famine was threatened by 
the appearance of a "blight" in the potato crop. The 
"potato rot" made it probable in 1845 that some 3,000,- 
000 of persons there would soon require support from 
public or private relief. The disease reappeared in 1 846 ; 
and not far from one-quarter of a million people died 
from hunger, fever, and maladies resulting from lack 
of food. Facing the prospect of actual famine for a 
great part of the nation, Peel came to the conclusion that 
the ports should be opened in order that the people might 
have bread. In the late fall of 1845 ne called several 
sessions of his cabinet in a vain effort to gain its members 
to his own point of view. John Russell, the Whig leader, 
noticing the unusually frequent meetings of the cabinet 
and correctly divining the meaning of their confused 
counsels, saw that free trade would in all probability 
come quite soon. Playing for party advantage no doubt, 
as well as seeking the general welfare, he promptly de- 
clared himself a convert to free-trade and forthwith is- 
sued a ringing manifesto, which showed that the Whigs 
could be counted on to abolish the corn laws. This 
was November 22. Peel, the Conservative leader, was 
forced to act. For ten days (November 25— December 
5) he did his best to win his colleagues in the ministry 
to stand with him for repeal, but failing in this tendered 
his resignation to the Queen. Russell was then sum- 
moned to form a ministry, but failed in the attempt. 
Peel was recalled by the Queen who reformed his min- 
istry and carried through Parliament the repeal measure 
in spite of an intense and long drawn out opposition from 
the majority of his own party. Peel's bill was introduced 
January 27, 1846; but the Conservative opposition, led 



82 England's Progress 

by George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli, and using 
every conceivable sort of dilatory and obstructionist tac- 
tics delayed its final passage in the House until May 15th. 
In the Commons 223 Liberals and Whigs and 104 Con- 
servatives voted for it and 229 Conservatives and Tories 
voted against it. In the House of Lords it passed with- 
out difficulty, June 25, 1846. On that very day, however, 
the angry Conservatives got their revenge on Peel by 
defeating his Coercion Bill for Ireland, which showed he 
could no longer hope to lead the party, and caused his 
immediate resignation as Prime Minister. 

Especially active and demonstrative in the years 1838, 
1842, 1848 was the Chartist movement. In 1842 the 
National Chartist Association had 40,000 members and 
400 affiliated societies. Its aims were ( 1 ) manhood suf- 
frage (2) vote by ballot (3) annual Parliaments (4) the 
abolition of the property qualification for the members 
of Parliament (5) equal electoral districts (6) the pay- 
ment for service as a representative in the Commons. 
O'Connor was the prominent leader, whose paper, "The 
Northern Star," had at one time a circulation of 50,000 
copies. To attract attention to their demands great mass 
meetings, numbering hundreds of thousands, and impres- 
sive torchlight processions at night were held, and mon- 
ster petitions with millions of signatures were sent to 
Parliament. Peaceful methods failing, the effects of riot- 
ing, rick-burning, and strikes were here and there tried. 
The collapse of the movement was due in the main to 
the fact that the physical force group, advocating violent 
methods acquired predominating influence in the counsels 
of its supporters. But though Chartism then failed, its 
ideas have lived and triumphed, all of its six demands, 
except that for annual elections, having since been gained. 



Progressive Legislation 83 

Other advances made during the era under considera- 
tion were taking from the East India Company the mo- 
nopoly of the trade of the East and throwing that com- 
merce open to the merchants of the world (1833) ; the 
commutation into money charges of tithes in kind and 
services in England (1836) ; the reform of the marriage 
laws, that allowed persons about to be married to choose 
what religious ceremony they preferred, and to marry 
without any if they cared to (1836) ; the establishment 
of a general registration system for births, deaths and 
marriages (1836) ; the establishment of the penny postal 
system (1840) ; the revision of the charter of the Bank of 
England that gave the country a safer currency, the de- 
partments of banking and issue being separated, the 
power of issuing money being centralized, and the pro- 
vision made that beyond a certain amount no paper 
should be issued except against bullion only (1844) ; the 
passage of the Canada Bill that conferred on the Ca- 
nadians the essentials of internal self-government (1840). 
In 1830 was the formal opening of the Liverpool and 
Manchester Steam Railway, and in 1838 a steam driven 
vessel crossed the Atlantic Ocean. By 1845 the blast 
furnace process of producing iron had been perfected, 
multiplying the demand for coal and increasing the pig 
iron output ten-fold. In 1838 Parliament in making a 
grant of 20,000 pounds for building new schools began 
laying the foundation of a national system of education. 
In 1836 the University of London was established and 
in 1850 towns were empowered to levy a small tax for 
the maintenance of libraries. The removal of stamp 
duties on newspapers and of taxes on advertisements 
and paper in the mid-century period advanced knowl- 
edge and enlightenment. The abolition of the window 



84 England's Progress 

tax in 1 85 1 meant less disease, as did the forming of the 
Local Health Boards of the municipalities after the 
cholera visitation in 1848. The working day of the chil- 
dren between eight and thirteen years of age was cut 
to six and a half hours in 1844, and all underground 
work for boys under ten and for females was forbidden. 
In the same year imprisonment for debts below 20 pounds 
was abolished, and duelling was checked through an army 
regulation declaring "that any officer who fought a duel 
would be cashiered." Earlier laws had been passed for 
prevention of cruelty to children and animals; for stop- 
ping the brutal baiting of bulls and bears, and for insur- 
ing the employment of more humane methods of dealing 
with criminals and lunatics. In 1843 was opened the first 
public telegraph office. Indicative of the progress of the 
era was the great international exhibition of arts and in- 
dustries held in London in 185 1. 



REFERENCES 

Walpole: History of England from 181 5, Vol. 3, p. 393. 

Walpole; Vol. 3, p. 416. 

Walpole: Vol. 3, p. 418. 

Dicey: Law and Opinion in England, p. 233. 

Walpole: Vol. 3, p. 445-446. 

Oman: England in the Nineteenth Century, p. 84. 

Bright: Vol. 1689-1837, p. 1452. 

Walpole: Vol. 4, p. 34. 

Walpole: Vol. 4, p. 397. 



CHAPTER VI 

FOREIGN POLICY UNDER PALMERSTON 

During the period 1 848-1 865 external events occupied 
the government and the public mind about as exclusively 
as did domestic reforms in the period 1 832-1 846. The 
forceful statesman who shaped England's foreign policy 
in these years was Lord Palmerston. With the return 
of the Whigs to power after the resignation of Peel, the 
Conservative leader in 1846, he was entrusted with the 
Foreign Office by the new Prime Minister, John Russell; 
and either as Secretary of Foreign Affairs or as Prime 
Minister he was to be in control of England's foreign rela- 
tions for an almost unbroken period of twenty years. He 
had had five years' experience at the Foreign Office under 
Lord Grey, 1830-1835. England's external policy for 
the better part of three decades then was the work of 
Palmerston, one of the ablest men of his day, abler pos- 
sibly than any one of the four prime ministers under 
whom he served, Grey, Melbourne, Russell and Aber- 
deen. For ten years preceding his death in 1865 he 
was at the head of the government, and for sixty years 
he was a member of the House of Commons. He was a 
heady, self-confident, decisive minister, having his own 
opinion on all diplomatic questions and not afraid to ex- 
press it, and "was looked upon by his contemporaries as 
the ideal exponent of a 'spirited foreign policy.' " x 

The outstanding feature of Palmerston's work in the 

early thirties was the union of France and England in 

85 



86 England's Progress 

support of the principles of liberalism and constitutional 
monarchy in Europe as against the three powers of the 
East, Austria, Russia and Germany, that were seeking 
to maintain despotic rule. Contrary to the wishes of 
the Holy Alliance, there was established in France in 
1830 by revolution a liberal constitutional monarchy 
under King Louis Philippe. The controlling power in 
this government of the Citizen King was lodged in the 
hands of the well-to-do middle classes. England was also 
a constitutional monarchy, governed until 1832 by a 
nobility and landed aristocracy chiefly, but then experienc- 
ing a political revolution that put in control the middle 
classes also. With similar institutions and like liberal 
tendencies it was not unnatural for the two countries to 
draw together when acting in regard to agitations in 
neighboring states that sought to get rid of absolutism 
and to establish forms of government not unlike theirs. 

The separation of Belgium from Holland and its crea- 
tion into a strong independent kingdom (1830-31) was 
largely the work of England and France, done in direct 
opposition to the will of the Holy Allies. To bring the 
King of Holland to terms the two Western powers placed 
an embargo on Dutch ships, blockaded the Scheldt, and 
besieged Antwerp. 2 The French interfered at the first, 
it seems, with the ambitious designs not only of assisting 
the Belgians to throw off the yoke of Holland and to 
set up a government for themselves but also of annexing 
their territory to free France; but Palmerston's diplo- 
macy and firmness thwarted that plan. At his insistence 
the French troops who had crossed into Belgium were 
withdrawn. 

About the same time (1 831-1833) France and Eng- 



Foreign Policy Under Palmerston 87 

land were led to interfere in Portugal. Don Miguel, a 
cruel despot, had committed frequent unjustifiable acts 
of violence against Englishmen and Frenchmen that had 
been accused of political offenses. Palmerston by dis- 
patching six warships to the Tagus had obtained a pe- 
cuniary indemnity and public apology (May, 183 1 ) and 
France had carried off some of the best ships of the Por- 
tuguese navy (July, 1831) when a movement was set on 
foot by Don Pedro, to remove from the throne his 
brother, the absolute Don Miguel, and establish consti- 
tutional rule under his daughter, later the Queen Maria. 
While the two Western powers as governments professed 
a strict neutrality, they allowed an amount of volunteer 1 
assistance that enabled the liberal constitutional party to 
triumph. Don Pedro's troops were in large part French 
and English volunteers, a Frenchman commanded his 
army and an Englishman his fleet. Pedro's forces took 
the capitol on the 24th of July, 1833. 

In Spain there was a contest also in 1833 between a 
young queen representing liberal principles of government 
and an uncle representing arbitrary rule. Isabella, the 
three-year-old Queen, and her mother, Christina, the 
Regent, who succeeded to the throne at the death of Fer- 
dinand VII, being supported by the constitutionalists of 
Spain and other countries, were able not only to hold 
their own against Don Carlos, but even to expel him 
eventually from the country, though he had the friend- 
ship of the clergy, peasantry, old nobility and absolutists. 
When Don Carlos and Don Miguel threatened to make 
common cause against the young queen, Palmerston de- 
cided to intervene, and arranged an alliance of Spain, 
Portugal, France and England to expel the two men 



88 England's Progress 

from the Peninsula. Spain and Portugal were to have, 
if needed, the assistance of a French Army and an Eng- 
lish Fleet. In this support of constitutionalism Palmer- 
ston probably had as his main purpose directing a blow 
against Russia, Prussia and Austria, the allied absolute 
powers of the East. The liberal party triumphed in 
Spain as in Portugal, though Don Carlos did not lay 
down his arms until 1840. 

Palmerston would have been glad for Poland to have 
been successful in her revolt against Russia in 1830, and 
in all probability would have given help, had he not feared 
lest England's aid to the insurrectionists might cause 
Russia to try to inflict injury on England's interests in 
the East. It was against the vigorous protests of both 
England and France that Russia interfered in Turkey 
at the call of the Sultan, hard-pressed by the Pasha of 
Egypt, and made with the Porte the advantageous Treaty 
of Unkiar Skelesi, 3 July 8, 1833. This treaty opened the 
Bosphorus to the Russians and closed the Dardanelles 
to the war ships of other powers, an advance for 
Russia that threatened the security of England's road to 
India. 

In the trying years of 1848-49 when a wave of revolu- 
tion was sweeping throughout almost every country of 
Europe, Palmerston pursued the cautious policy of non- 
intervention. While he hated to see the constitutional 
struggles in Italy and Germany put down by Austria, 
and the uprising in Hungary crushed out by Austria and 
Russia, he would not give those in revolt any military aid 
but only pressed counsels of peace and order on the con- 
tending parties, a great disappointment to the patriots. 
He correctly divined no doubt that England's entrance 
into the widespread crusade for national rights would 



Foreign Policy Under Palmerston 89 

engage her in a war with most of the governments of 
Europe. 

In France the revolution of 1848 substituted a republic 
under Louis Napoleon for the monarchy of Louis Phil- 
lippe, and by 1852 Napoleon had made himself Em- 
peror. Palmerston preferred the stronger government 
of the empire to the republic that had been full of shams, 
and hastened, therefore, before first getting the sanction 
of the Queen and the Ministry, to notify the French Am- 
bassador of his recognition of the new imperial govern- 
ment. His audacity was not relished by Victoria, nor 
by the Prime Minister, John Russell; and as a result he 
was dismissed from office. Palmerston, however, got 
even with Russell two months later, leading a group of 
Russell's friends into the Opposition lobby against the 
Militia Bill, which defeated the measure and caused the 
overthrow of the Whig ministry. But the Conservative 
ministry of Lord Derby lasted only a few months (Feb.— 
Dec, 1852), and by the end of the year, 1852, a Whig 
ministry was again in power of which both Palmerston 
and Russell were members. By 1855 Palmerston had 
been put at the head of the government, and with the 
exception of one brief intermission (Feb., 1858, to June, 
1859, when the Conservatives under Lord Derby were 
again in control) he held the office of Prime Minister 
until his death in 1865. 

In 1855 the Crimean War was being waged. The con- 
flict had begun by Russia's sending an ambassador, Prince 
Menshikov, to Constantinople demanding a formal treaty 
from the Sultan granting Russia the right of protecting 
the Greek Christians in the East. The English ambas- 
sador at the Porte, Stratford, considered that Menshi- 
kov's demands virtually meant "the surrender to Russian 



90 England's Progress 

influence, management and authority of the Greek 
churches and clergy throughout Turkey, and eventually, 
therefore, of the whole Greek population dependent on 
the priests." 4 Realizing that Russia's move had as its 
ulterior purpose territorial aggression on Turkey, which 
neither France nor England fancied, Stratford, in com- 
pany with the French Ambassador, persuaded the Sultan 
to refuse Menshikov's request, whereupon Czar Nicholas 
ordered a military force to occupy Roumania, a part of 
the Sultan's dominions, which being done soon led to a 
union of England and France against Russia, and to 
open warfare. Russia's troops entered Turkish territory 
in July, 1853, and a few months later a Russian squad- 
ron destroyed a Turkish fleet at Sinope. England and 
France then sent their warships through the Bosphorus, 
forcing the Russians to take refuge in the harbour of 
Sebastopol (January, 1854). They next issued an ulti- 
matum to the Czar, threatening hostility unless he with- 
drew his forces from Turkish territory. Their order 
was disregarded, and they declared war, March 27, 1854. 
Though Lord Aberdeen was the Prime Minister at this 
time, it was his Secretary, Palmerston, that pressed Eng- 
land on to the contest, and when general dissatisfaction 
with Aberdeen's slack and dilatory conduct of the war 
caused his resignation in 1855, it was the energetic Pal- 
merston who was given his office. In May, 1855, Victor 
Immanuel, King of Sardinia, added some of his troops 
to the military forces of England and France. The war 
lasted two years, cost England 77,000,000 pounds, added 
33,000,000 to the national debt, and took the lives of 
20,000 British soldiers, most of whom died from disease 
and neglect due to inexcusable army mismanagement. 
The siege of Sebastopol by the allied forces lasted 11 



Foreign Policy Under P aimer ston 91 

months, and cost 100,000 lives. In the famous charge 
of the Light Brigade, caused by a misinterpreted order, 
— forward for a mile and a half under a concentrated 
fire from all sides, and then return, — there was a loss of 
113 killed and 154 wounded out of 670 cavalrymen. 
The want of proper shelter, diet, medicines, nursing, and 
hospital service caused a frightful death-rate, thousands 
dying from cholera, scurvy, dysentery, and fever. Be- 
fore Florence Nightingale and her nurses had introduced 
better conditions, the daily average of the sick for awhile 
was not much under 14,000 patients. With the fall of 
Sebastopol, September 5, 1855, the defence of which cost 
Russia not far from 250,000 lives, the war drew towards 
a close. The peace terms were not concluded, however, 
until the Treaty of Paris, March 30, 1856. This agree- 
ment 5 provided for Russia's restoration of Turkish terri- 
tory occupied during the war; the recognition of the integ- 
rity of the Ottoman Empire and its admission as a state 
into the "concert of Europe" ; the promise of non-interven- 
tion on the part of European states in Turkey's internal 
affairs; the promise of the Sultan to better protect his 
Christian subjects; the prohibition of the ships-of-war of 
any other nation entering the Black Sea, and of the estab- 
lishing of arsenals on its coasts by Russia or Turkey; the 
free navigation of the Danube; the abolition of Russia's 
protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia, and the in- 
dependent administration of these provinces under the 
suzerainty of the Sultan and the joint guarantee of the 
powers. In this war England had successfully thwarted 
Russia, saving Turkey from her grasp; but she did not 
succeed in her hopes of permanently checking or crippling 
Russia or of reforming the Ottoman State. The Eastern 
Question still remained. The war showed to England 



92 England's Progress 

the ill preparedness oi her military organizations; gave 
to the Turkish government an increased importance, 
added to the French military glory, and secured to the 

Sardinians the Friendship of France that aided them in 

Ousting Austria from l.ombardy in iSsO. The treaty, a 
European settlement, received the signatures of Austria, 
England, Piedmont, France, Russia and Turkey, 

In 1856 Kngland became involved in a brief war with 
Persia. The Shah, at the instigation oi Russia had tried 
to conquer Afghanistan and had laid siege to 1 lerat. To 
keep this difficult mountainous country, Afghanistan, as a 
butler state between Russia and India was, and is, Mug- 
land's aim. PalmerstOI) felt that Persia's advance 
should be resisted on the principle oi repelling "the first 
opening oi trenches against India by Russia." Then too 
the Shah was not observing his treaty obligations with 
England. Friendly remonstrances having failed, a mili- 
tary and naval force under the command of Sir James 
Outran! was promptly sent to the Persian Gulf, the port 
oi Bushire was captured, and an inland advance under 
Outram and Havelock made that resulted in capturing 
owe or two fortified stations, in defeating the Persian 
troops that ottered resistance, and in the Shah's evacua- 
tion of Herat and suit for peace. In March, 1857, a 
peace treaty was signed in which the Shah promised a 
withdrawal of troops from Herat, a relinquishment of 
all claims of sovereignty over any part of Afghanistan, 
an abstention from all interference with the indepen- 
dence of the state, and the submission for settlement of 
all differences that might arise with Russia to the friendly 
offices of the British government before recourse should 
be had to arms. 



Foreign Policy Under Palmerston 93 

In 1856 Palmerston decided to make war on China be- 
cause officials there had seized a vessel flying the English 
flag. The ship seems to have been a piratical craft, but 
none the less the Prime Minister interpreted the act as an 
insult to the flag, as did the English people, and hos- 
tilities were begun. Owing to the outbreak of a serious 
mutiny in India, to suppress which demanded the whole 
strength and attention of the government for a year or 
more, the Chinese quarrel was not settled until i860. 
In 1858 ,! Pekin was threatened by a fleet and army, forts 
on the Peiho River were stormed, and the Emperor forced 
to promise reparation and the opening of certain ports. 
But the engagements made in this Treaty of Tien-Tsing 
(1858) the Chinese government did not keep. So in 
1859 the English, incensed by the murder of certain 
British envoys and supported now by the French, who 
had grievances also, stormed the forts again, took Pekin 
and plundered and burnt the Emperor's Summer Palace. 
China then yielded. An indemnity of 8,000,000 taels 
was imposed, the port of Tien-Tsing was opened to 
British trade, a small part of Canton was ceded to Great 
Britain, as the dependency of Hongkong; and the for- 
mer Treaty of Tien-Tsing was properly ratified. This 
provided for the opening of several ports, the having of 
consuls, the statement of the judicial rights of subjects, 
and the permanent establishment at Pekin of a British 
Minister. 

In these same years ( 1859-6 1 ) the Italians under Vic- 
tor Immanuel, Cavour and Garibaldi were building up a 
United Italy, by overthrowing the petty princes of Cen- 
tral Italy and pressing back Austria, a feat very pleasing 
to Palmerston. In 1861 the new kingdom was pro- 



94 England's Progress 

claimed, which included then all of Italy except Rome and 
Venice, the one held by the Pope supported by the Cath- 
olic French until 1870 and the other held by Austria 
until 1866. 

In the desperate, unsuccessful Polish insurrection 
against Russian control in 1862—63, and in the Schleswig- 
Holstein secession from Denmark made possible by the 
assistance rendered by Austria and especially by Prussia, 
which latter kingdom eventually got the duchies, Pal- 
merston remonstrated, but in vain, in the interest of the 
Poles and Danes. Had Napoleon III been willing to 
co-operate with him, an armed intervention of the French 
and English would probably have occurred. 

In the American War of Secession (1861-1865) Palm- 
erston was not slow in recognizing the Confederates as 
belligerents, an act very objectionable to the Federals, 
but not unpleasing to many Englishmen. While there was 
a considerable body of people in England who favored the 
North as being engaged in a crusade for the abolition of 
slavery, there was also a large party favorable to the 
South, some of whom disliked the Northerners as com- 
mercial rivals and high protectionists, others of whom re- 
garded the Confederates as in a noble struggle for free- 
dom, and still others who "thought that the balance of 
power in the world would be better kept if the vast re- 
public in the West split asunder." The effects of the 
Federal blockade of southern ports were keenly felt in 
Great Britain. Since as yet India and Egypt were not 
serious rivals of America in cotton growing, the Lanca- 
shire cotton factories were directly dependent on 
Southern exports of raw material. In this industry the 
manufacturers had to cease operations, and "skilled 
artisans were thrown out of work at the rate of 10,000 



Foreign Policy Under Palmerston 95 

a week." In the latter part of 1862 many of the labor- 
ing population of the cotton factory districts had to be 
supported by charity. The Government gave 600,000 
pounds for their aid and 2,000,000 more were raised by 
general subscriptions. 7 "In December, 1862, some 
50,000 persons were receiving regular relief, and the 
weekly loss of wages was estimated at 168,000 pounds." 8 
England was brought perilously near to war with the 
Federal government when the British naval steamer 
"Trent" voyaging between neutral ports was stopped by 
the Captain of a Federal man-of-war, in order to take 
from it two Confederate envoys, Mason and Slidell, who 
were on their way from Havana to Europe. At one 
time in the controversy, before the captives were sur- 
rendered, Palmerston began to send into Canada a con- 
siderable army; the militia and volunteers in the province 
were put upon a war footing; and fiery feeling was kin- 
dled throughout the United Kingdom in vindication of 
insulted honor. This state of opinion in England ac- 
counted in part for the ease with which Confederate 
agents succeeded in having fitted out in British dock- 
yards destructive privateers, such as the Alabama, 
Georgia, Florida, Shenandoah and Rappahannock. The 
failure of the English government to detain the Alabama* 
after having been notified by the Federal authorities that 
the vessel was a Southern war ship in disguise, cost Great 
Britain 3,000,000 pounds, an award granted in 1872 by 
a board of arbitration sitting at Geneva. Palmerston's 
ministry hardly reckoned that their Southern sympathies 
would cost England quite so much in gold. When this 
war closed in April, 1865, Palmerston was but within a 
few months of the end of his long and active career. He 
died October 18, 1865, at the advanced age of 81. 



g6 England's Progress 



REFERENCES 

1. Oman: p. 83. 

2. Bright: Constitutional Monarchy, p. 1463. 

3. Bright: Constitutional Monarchy, p. 1465. 

4. Low and Sanders: p. 101. 

5. Low and Sanders: p. 124. 

6. Oman: p. 141. 

7. Oman: p. 148-149. 

8. Bright: Growth of Democracy, p. 382. 



CHAPTER VII 

THE MINISTRY OF RUSSELL 

1865-1866 

With the death of Palmerston in 1865, the veteran 
Whig, Earl John Russell, at the advanced age of 74 suc- 
ceeded to the Premiership. 

Just after accession to power the government received 
news of a negro insurrection in Jamaica. A considerable 
crowd of blacks having grievances as to wages, rents and 
administration of law and justice, but especially angered 
by an attempt to arrest and punish some of their number 
who had beaten a policeman, began rioting. They broke 
into stores, into the jail, burnt the court house, killed 
18 men at the start, and then scattered in parties through 
the country, attacking plantations and murdering some 
of the whites. Martial law was proclaimed in the dis- 
trict of revolt by Mr. Eyre, Governor of the island; 
troops were sent in, and the infliction of most summary 
punishments begun. Though the rebellion was quickly 
put down, martial law continued in force for three weeks 
longer and vengeance was not satisfied before a thousand 
dwellings were burned, 439 persons put to death, and 600 
more, many of them women, severely flogged. One Mr. 
Gordon, a proprietor and Baptist preacher, who was 
wrongly supposed to have inspired the insurrection, was 
tried by court martial, condemned on the flimsiest sort of 
evidence and executed. Such murderous proceedings in 
the name of law stirred up so much criticism in England, 

97 



98 England's Progress 

that the government was led to appoint a commission to 
enquire into the facts of the situation. The commis- 
sioners reported that while the rising was of a most dan- 
gerous character, and Governor Eyre was to be com- 
mended for his promptness, skill and vigour in suppres- 
sing it, still martial law had been continued much too 
long, that executions had been too frequent, that the burn- 
ing of many houses was wanton and cruel, and much of 
the flogging entirely barbarous. Governor Eyre was 
therefore recalled to England, where for several years 
vain efforts were made by a group of men to prosecute 
him for u high crimes and misdemeanors in acts of alleged 
abuse and oppression under colour of execution of his 
office as Governor of the Island." x But as Eyre's wrong 
acts were committed in efforts to assert English author- 
ity and supremacy, they were apt to be condoned by a 
considerable section of the British public. The grand 
jury threw out all bills brought against him, and in 1872 
Parliament showed its attitude by voting a sum of money 
to repay him for expenses incurred in defending himself. 
In 1865 serious trouble arose in Ireland. The Fenian 
Brotherhood, a secret society formed as early as 1858 
in the state of New York and composed chiefly of Irish- 
Americans, was planning a military revolt that sought 
not only the independence of the island, but also a gen- 
eral subversion of society and a wholesale redistribution 
of property. The unhappy state of that country, its 
political subjugation, its racial and religious animosities, 
its agrarian grievances and economic ills, such as absen- 
teeism of landlords, unfair rents, frequent ejectment of 
tenants without compensation for improvements made, 
lack of employment, scarcity of capital and general pov- 
erty had caused for some years a constantly swelling 



The Ministry of Russell 99 

stream of emigrants to seek their fortune across the 
Atlantic in the United States. In this democratic land 
they soon acquired the franchise and, being courted for 
their votes as their numbers increased, they gained as 
men and citizens a new sense of their influence and im- 
portance. In witnessing and taking part in the great 
national party contests and elections, they learned the 
value and methods of political organization, and thou- 
sands of them having been employed in the armies of 
both the North and South during the four years' Civil 
War got knowledge and training as soldiers. In 1865, 
the close of the war bringing their disbandment, they 
decided to employ their powers in an attempt to free 
the land of their birth. Fenian outbreaks of varying 
character appeared at different times and places, — in Ire- 
land, in England and in Canada — but all miserably 
failed, the treacherous informer so common in secret so- 
cieties revealing to the government the designs of the 
organization. It was discovered that the Fenians had 
their factories for making bullets, pikes and cartridges; 
that they were making efforts to win over the state gar- 
risons and troops; that their agents were scattered all 
through the country swearing in new supporters: and that 
hundreds of men had been brought in from England and 
Scotland and were being paid regular wages for the sole 
purpose of assisting at the proper time in the insurrec- 
tion. Alarmed by all this, Parliament, at the request of 
the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, called a special meeting 
and suspended the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. Over 
a hundred arrests were promptly made. The Fenians be- 
came frightened and the Irish-Americans in considerable 
numbers quickly embarked for America. In May, 1866, 
over a thousand of their class crossed the Niagara river 



ioo England's Progress 

and invaded Canada, only to be repulsed at once, how- 
ever, by the loyal militia. Six of the invaders were cap- 
tured, court-martialed and shot. The raiders no doubt 
hoped for assistance from the United States, but that 
Government promptly denounced the movement, and de- 
clared its unwillingness to permit on its boundary hos- 
tile operations against a friendly power. The Fenians 
had imagined they could further their projects by taking 
advantage of the strained relations existing between Eng- 
land and the United States at the close of the Civil War: 
an estrangement due to the supposed not unfriendly atti- 
tude of England toward the South in that conflict and to 
such indirect aid to the Confederacy as was represented 
in the still unadjudicated case of the Alabama Claims. 
The Irish were attempting, it seems, to embroil the two 
nations in strife. Among the Fenian activities in Ireland 
were mismanaged attacks on political barracks, raids on 
coast-guard stations to get arms and ammunition, cutting 
telegraph wires, and placing obstructions on railways. 
One effect of these troubles was to direct the mind of 
England to a consideration of the needs of Ireland, 
which was a preparation for the work of Gladstone for 
this country when later becoming Prime Minister. 

Russell's ministry marks the introduction of a new 
order in English political life. With the passing of Palm- 
erston and the rise to influence of Gladstone begins an 
era of democratic liberalism. Palmerston possessed 
the staid conservatism of the aristocratic Old Whigs. He 
had been in the House of Commons for more than a half 
century. For the greater part of this time he held 
office in a Whig or Liberal ministry; and like the majority 
of his party had faith in middle class rule but distrusted 
the masses. The proposals of the few radicals in Parlia- 



The Ministry of Russell 101 

ment and the noisy demands of the Chartists outside did 
not win his favor or support. His recognized aversion 
and opposition to political innovations gained for him 
the allegiance of not a few Conservatives and Tories, 
who being unable to put one of their own party at 
the head of the government supported Palmerston 
for fear that a more radical Liberal might come into 
power. He did not consider it wise to increase the 
political power of the people by lowering further the 
franchise; and had taken as long a stride as he intended 
to take in this direction in 1832 when the middle class, 
the merchants and 10 pound house-holders were brought 
into the electorate. Since 1855 ne na d been at the head 
of the Liberal party; but he had restrained rather than 
encouraged the efforts of the few bolder spirits within 
it who believed improvements might be made in the con- 
stitution. One of these was William Ewart Gladstone, 
the ablest member in Palmerston's cabinet, who for six 
years had been Chancellor of the Exchequer and whose 
successful financial budgets and efficient administration of 
office had revealed him to the nation as a statesman of 
the first rank. He did not like Palmerston's habit of 
making great expenditures of the people's money on mili- 
tary purposes and contingencies, nor his way of diverting 
the nation's thought from the consideration of needed 
home reforms. He believed too the time was at hand 
for a widening of the electorate. Palmerston was well 
aware of his opposition and restiveness. "When that 
man gets my place," the Prime Minister had said, "we 
shall have strange doings." 

Gladstone was an extraordinary man and had a remark- 
able career. He was four times made Prime Minister, 
heading four different administrations. He was for 



102 England's Progress 

twenty years a Cabinet officer, for over fifty years a 
member of the Privy Council, and for more than sixty 
years a member of the House of Commons. Almost from 
his first entrance into Parliament (1833) at the early 
age of 23 just after his graduation at Oxford University 
where he had taken a double first in classics and mathe- 
matics, until his death (1898) at the advanced age of 
eighty-eight he was recognized as a public man of special 
influence and weight. For three decades at least, he was 
the foremost man in the House of Commons. He was a 
great admirer of Robert Peel. Both were progressive, 
openminded students and statesmen ever seeking more 
light on political problems, and ready, notwithstanding 
the charge of instability or inconsistency, to change 
position and take new and advanced ground on a question 
when a better understanding of the facts in the case 
seemed to warrant it. Peel's great apostasy was his 
turning on the corn law question from protection to 
approximately free trade. Gladstone in early years 
opposed many causes which in later life he most ardently 
championed. In 1833 he fought against the admission 
of Jews to Parliament, but in 1847 ne voted for the 
removal of Jewish disabilities. The views he expressed 
on the subject of slavery in 1833 he himself declared six 
years later to possess "sad defects." In the opening 
decade of his public life he was a staunch Tory but he 
became the recognized head of the Liberal Party for a 
quarter of a century, and the accepted leader too eventu- 
ally of the Irish and the Radicals. Since 1852 he and a 
few more Peelite Tories, or advanced Conservatives, had 
become incorporated with the Whigs and Liberals. In 
1865 at Palmerston's death he took his place as leader 
of the Liberals in the House of Commons. And in 



The Ministry of Russell 103 

1866 he was championing the cause of electoral reform. 
Very moderate in its proposals was Russell's franchise 
measure laid before the House by Gladstone. Only 
400,000 voters were to be added to an electorate of 
2,000,000. But none the less it displeased a faction of 
30 or 40 unprogressive spirits of the Liberal party. The 
Conservatives with the aid of this disaffected group de- 
feated the measure and dismissed the ministry. On a 
high patriotic key were some of Gladstone's speeches 
made at the time answering in debate his opponents who 
objected to those who were to be added to the voting 
list as "venal, ignorant, drunken, unreflective, violent 
people." "Some gentlemen," he said, "deal with (elec- 
toral) statistics, as if they were ascertaining the numbers 
of an invading army. But the persons to whom their re- 
marks apply are our fellow-subjects, our fellow-Chris- 
tians, our own flesh and blood who have been lauded to 
the skies for their good conduct." . . . "You cannot 
fight against the future, time is on our side. The great 
social forces which move on in their might and majesty, 
and which the tumult of our debates does not for a mo- 
ment impede or disturb — those great social forces are 
against you; they are marshalled on our side; and the 
banner which we now carry in the fight though perhaps 
at some moment it may droop over our sinking heads, 
yet it soon again will float in the eye of Heaven, and it 
will be borne by the firm hands of the united people of 
the three kingdoms, perhaps not to an easy, but to a 
certain and to a not far distant victory." 2 

REFERENCES 

1. Low and Sanders: p. 199. 

2. Morley : Life of Gladstone, Vol. 2, p. 627. 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE DERBY-DISRAELI MINISTRY 

1866-1868 

In the work of the Derby-Disraeli ministry which ex- 
tended from June, 1866, to December, 1868, the hand 
of Disraeli, Gladstone's life-long rival, is evident from 
first to last. 

He had long been the trusted lieutenant of Derby, and 
now that the latter was feeling the weight of years, he 
was not loth to let rest upon the shoulders of the younger 
man a full share of the responsibilities and burdens of 
government and political leadership. In February, 
1868, when Lord Derby, being nearly 70 years old, and 
failing in health, retired, Disraeli succeeded to the pre- 
miership, thus realizing the bold and definitely avowed 
ambition of his early manhood. 

Original and unique is his character, surprising and in- 
spiring his career. He was born of Jewish parentage and 
was as an infant "duly initiated into the covenant of 
Abraham." At the age of twelve, however, his father 
having already broken with the synagogue on account 
of the imposition of a fine, the boy was baptized a Chris- 
tian and became a member of the Church of England. 
He was "born in a library," he once said. He was at 
home in the fashionable world, foppish in his dress "with 
gorgeous waistcoats, tasselled canes, flashing rings, 
dangling gold chains and velvet coats." He was brilliant 

in conversation, his wit and repartee reflecting intellec- 

104 



The Derby-Disraeli Ministry 105 

tual powers of the highest order. He was a writer of 
popular political novels. Pure courage and unconquer- 
able will were prominent in the make-up of the man. 
He was defeated at the polls four times in succession in 
his candidacy at the first for Parliament. Elected, he 
tried in vain for twenty minutes to make his "maiden 
speech" in the House of Commons, his voice being 
drowned over and over again by the hoots and jeers of 
hostile opponents there. For fifty years he was the "best 
abused man of his time . . . accused of nearly every 
crime in the political decalogue." 1 From a disfranchised 
race was the blood in his veins, yet his genius and industry 
and fighting carried him to the very top. He was promi- 
nent in the House of Commons for nearly forty years. 
He was raised to the peerage, being made Earl of Bea- 
consfield in 1876. He was twice prime-minister, becoming 
the personal friend of the Queen and the statesman of 
especial influence at Court. Among his honours were a 
D.C.L. of Oxford University, an LL.D. of Edinburgh 
University, the Lord Rectorship of Glasgow University, 
and Knight of the Garter. Considered at first a mere 
political adventurer and regarded therefore with suspicion 
by conservative men in Parliament he in the end became 
the head, guide, and spokesman of that very class. He 
proved a cherished friend of the landed and propertied 
classes, and a staunch loyalist to Church, Country and 
Queen. Building up and "educating" the Conservative 
party he inserted in its creed two positive and somewhat 
new ideas: viz. ( 1) legislation for but not by the masses, 
and (2) imperialism. 

As a political leader, he did not prize highly the jewel 
of consistency. Since he had opposed the recent measure 
of the Russell ministry for enlarging the electorate, it 



106 England's Progress 

seems surprising that he should no sooner come into 
power as leader of the Commons than he proposed him- 
self a reform bill. "The truth is," he once said, "the 
statesman is the creature of his age, the creation of his 
times. He is essentially a practical character, and when 
he is called upon to take office, he is not to inquire what 
his opinions might or might not have been upon this or 
that subject. He is only to ascertain the needful and 
the beneficial. I laugh therefore at the objections against 
a man that at a former period of his career he advocated 
a policy different from his present one. All I seek to 
ascertain is, whether his present policy be just, neces- 
sary, expedient; whether at the present moment he is 
prepared to serve the country according to its present 
necessities." 2 Now while the nation had seemed apa- 
thetic toward suffrage reform during the debates on the 
recently defeated bill, no sooner had that bill been re- 
jected than there suddenly sprung up a vigorous wide- 
spread agitiation for it. Peoples' leagues and working- 
men's associations were formed, issuing their protests 
and resolutions; street processions, open-air mass-meet- 
ings, floods of oratory, and monster popular demonstra- 
tions of varying character gave publicity, and called gen- 
eral attention to the demand. The refusal of the gov- 
ernment to allow a big public meeting of the reformers 
to be held in Hyde Park, London, in July, 1866, re- 
sulted in violent disorders. The gates being closed, the 
crowd made their entrance by tearing down long stretches 
of the iron railings encircling it; the police were at- 
tacked with missiles ; and later there was a good deal of 
window smashing in this fashionable quarter. Disraeli 
saw that the nation was bent on having a parliamentary 
reform measure, and being fully persuaded that if the 



The Derby-Disraeli Ministry 107 

Conservative Ministry did not give it a Liberal Ministry 
would, he determined to have the credit of leading in 
its enactment. He was averse to democracy; he knew 
that his party as a whole did not desire any such reform; 
and he probably expected, as turned out to be the case, 
that some of his colleagues in the Cabinet would resign 
before they would support him in such legislation; but 
none the less, confident that franchise revision was com- 
ing, he resolved to have the shaping of it, hoping pos- 
sibly to quiet popular clamour by a measure less radical 
than one passed by the Liberal Party. 

His resolutions (February II, 1867) and bill 
(March 18, 1867) were neither frank nor democratic. 
While on their face they wore the purpose of lowering 
and widening the franchise, and of increasing the politi- 
cal representation and power of the labor classes, yet 
by an ingenious system of "fancy franchises," double vot- 
ing, checks and balances, they really offset the political 
influence of these newly enfranchised lower classes by a 
correspondingly enlarged influence of the higher and 
wealthier classes. The Liberals who desired reform but 
not of this sort, criticised the bill most fiercely. Bright 
said it bore "upon its face the marks of deception and 
disappointment." Gladstone called it a "gigantic instru- 
ment of fraud." The opposition under his leadership 
began to amend and mutilate as much as possible the 
measure, hoping to defeat the ministry; but discovered 
that Disraeli instead of holding firmly to the principles 
of his bill and being ready to resign when unable to carry 
his proposal through the House, gracefully yielded to 
the opposition point after point, amendment after 
amendment, declaring that he regarded the alterations 
after all as matters not of vital import but of detail 



108 England's Progress 

only. Before the opposition was through with its 
changes, the bill had been all made over, becoming a 
very democratic measure and incorporating into the elec- 
torate a larger number of persons than had been sug- 
gested hitherto even by the Liberal chiefs. Gladstone 
secured 3 (i) the omission of the dual vote, (2) the 
omission of the educational franchise, (3) the omissiop 
of the savings bank franchise, (4) the reduction of the 
county franchise, (5) a provision to prevent traffic in 
votes, (6) a reduction of the residential qualification 
for the borough vote from 2 years to 1 year, (7) the 
introduction of a lodger franchise, (8) the abolition of 
the proposed safeguard that the franchise of the house- 
holder should depend on the personal payment of rates, 
with the effect of conferring the vote on the householder 
whether he paid the rate direct in person, or through 
a landlord, and (9) alterations concerning voting papers, 
redistribution of a few seats and other minor provisions. 
As finally passed the bill gave votes in the boroughs to 
all male householders and to all lodgers who had resided 
in the place one year and who paid 10 pounds in rent; 
and in the counties to all persons who owned property 
vielding 5 pounds annual income and to all occupiers or 
tenants paying in rent 12 pounds a year. It nearly 
doubled the number of voters. The agricultural laborers, 
however, were not brought into the electorate at this 
time. Their enfranchisement came with the passage of 
the Gladstone's Reform Bill in 1884. This measure 
of 1867 was more of Gladstone's than of Disraeli's. 
The Duke of Buccleuch considered the "only part due 
to her Majesty's Government was the introductory word 
'Whereas.' " Disraeli, had the satisfaction, however, 
of having cleverly steered the bill through Parliament. 



The Derby-Disraeli Ministry 109 

The Derby-Disraeli ministry had to handle several del- 
icate questions of foreign policy. In Abyssinia the king, 
Theodore, had imprisoned several British subjects, 
among whom were missionaries, Bible society agents, 
and two special envoys sent from England to treat 
with the ruler; and, in spite of England's threat of 
making war on his kingdom unless he soon freed the cap- 
tives, had heedlessly continued their incarceration. 
Theodore was a usurper who ruled in a small empire 
filled with insurrection. He lived in a state surrounded 
by Mohammedan and Negro powers, and as a representa- 
tive of the Coptic Christians, he had met opposition 
from the French Catholic missionaries. His reason for 
seizing the Englishmen seems to have been his suspicion 
that they were intriguing with the Moslem Turks, against 
him. While a small relief party might have sufficed to 
release the few prisoners, the British Government deemed 
it best in order that England's prestige might be elevated 
in the eyes of the East, to equip an army of 12,000 men 
drawn in the main from the Indian forces, and to march 
the whole of it on Magdala, the Abyssinian capital. The 
city was 400 miles distant, across a difficult unknown 
country, poorly watered, lacking roads and means of 
transit, and traversed by deep ravines and mountain bar- 
riers. The expedition under the command of Sir Robert 
Napier, a military officer of high authority in the Bom- 
bay presidency and a civil engineer of experience and re- 
pute, was prudently conducted and altogether successful. 
The army started in January, 1868, and in April the 
fortress of Magdala was taken, the Abyssinian troops 
having been quickly defeated by the mere baggage guard 
of the English. The captives were discovered unharmed 
and were released. King Theodore, humiliated and 



no England's Progress 

frightened, in despair committed suicide. By May the 
attacking party was sate at home again. This imperial 
"hoisting of the standard of St. George on the moun- 
tains of Rasselas," as Disraeli proudly spoke of it, 
cost the nation 8,000,000 pounds. 

In June, 1866, broke out the great Austro-Prussian 
War. These countries had quarreled over the division 
and government of the Schleswig-Holstein territory taken' 
from Denmark in 1864. Prussia, supported by Italy 
and having superior arms, notably the new rapid-fire 
breech-loading "needle-gun," quickly gained a complete 
victory. ^Yhile the Austrians whipped the Italians at 
Custozza, and later won a naval engagement at Lissa, 
these successes counted for little in face of the crushing 
defeat by the Prussians at Sadowa, in which the Austrian 
loss was 40,000 men. In less time than two months from 
the opening of hostilities Austria sued for peace. Prus- 
sia got the Schleswig-Holstein territory, ousted alto- 
gether Austria from control in German affairs, and as- 
sumed herself the leadership of North Germany, annex- 
ing Nassau, Hesse-Cassel, Hanover, Hamburg, and the 
Elbe Duchies, and forming a confederation destined to 
expand soon into the powerful German Empire. In 
this "battle of giants," as Disraeli termed the contest, 
England maintained a strict policy of non-intervention. 
Great Britain along with France and Russia had at- 
tempted the role of peace-making before the disputants 
had come to blows; but the w T ar once on the nation did 
not interfere in the least. At its close, however, Eng- 
land joined the Continental Powers in a Conference in 
London. In consideration of the feelings of the French, 
they ordered the menacing fortress of Luxemburg de- 
stroyed, and the Prussian garrison recently placed there 



The Derby-Disraeli Ministry III 

withdrawn; also collectively they guaranteed the neu- 
trality of the Luxemburg territory. 

The policy of non-intervention was pursued likewise 
with reference to the military conflict in Italy in 1866 
and in the French-Mexican affair of 1876. The Italians, 
having just added to their state Venetia, a reward for 
assisting Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War, were full 
now of the desire to annex Rome, papal territory, and 
thus make the Italian kingdom coextensive with the whole 
Peninsula. A body of volunteers, led by the heroic Gari- 
baldi, marched on the capital, but were repulsed by 
French and papal troops, Napoleon III, Emperor of 
Catholic France, having sent a part of his army to sup- 
port the Pope. While the sympathy of England seems 
to have been with the Italian patriots no governmental 
favors were accorded them. And in June, 1867, when 
Napoleon Ill's ambitious scheme for an empire in Mex- 
ico ended in the tragic execution of the Emperor Max- 
imilian, the French troops that supported him having to 
be withdrawn at the threat of intervention on the part 
of the United States and the Mexicans having taken and 
shot him, no judgment whatever on the affair was re- 
corded by the British Parliament. There was consider- 
able excitement over the sad occurrence; still the Foreign 
Secretary, Lord Stanley, was opposed to the govern- 
ment's taking any action. He would have it remem- 
bered "that whatever the power and influence of the 
House might be, it was only the Parliament of the United 
Kingdom and not of the world." 4 Disraeli justified the 
ministry's course of abstention from interference in these 
various conflicts as follows: "In announcing our policy 
to be a policy of non-interference, all we mean to say is, 
that we will not exhaust the energies nor waste the treas- 



H2 England's Progress 

ure of this country by interfering in continental strug- 
gles to uphold an imaginary and fallacious balance of 
power. But because we thus announce what we call a 
policy of non-interference, we do not mean to say that 
we will not act when the interests and honour of England 
require it; and because we maintain a policy of non-inter- 
ference of the character I have described, that is no 
reason why we should not sympathize with other nations. 
. . . Our interest is that there should be peace in 
Europe." 

An important development within this empire in Feb- 
ruary, 1867, was the confederation of the British North 
American Provinces. The Canadian States united under 
a constitution that provided for a Governor-General ap- 
pointed by the Crown, for a Senate whose members 
were appointed for life by the Governor-General; and 
for a lower House elected by the people of the provinces. 
Legal affairs were to be cared for by the provincial legis- 
lative bodies. With the exception of having their chief 
executive sent over by the Home Government, the Ca- 
nadian Dominion became virtually an independent power, 
having been given entire command of its military forces, 
commerce, law-making and taxes. The larger freedom 
strengthened rather than weakened the loyalty of the 
country to Great Britain. 

In the spring of 1868 the disaffected state of Ireland 
again demanded the government's consideration. While 
the agrarian grievances about leases, rents and evictions, 
the resident Englishman's treatment of the Irish as a 
social inferior, the socialistic spirit of some classes, and 
the Fenian nationalistic activities were all causing trou- 
bles, the special grievance was the compulsory support of 
the Protestant Church Establishment. To meet the Irish 



The Derby-Disraeli Ministry 113 

situation the Conservative ministry had nothing thor- 
oughgoing or generous to propose, offering only reme- 
dial or coercive measures of small scope for ills which they 
would like to have considered as transitory and on the de- 
cline. Their plans of providing a Catholic ministry, of 
a readjustment of church property, of appointment of 
commissions of enquiry, and of dependence on force and 
of suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act did not meet 
with approval from the Liberals who considered the 
schemes insufficient, impracticable and purposefully dila- 
tory. The opposition desired a measure that would 
more nearly touch the root of the matter. When there- 
fore Gladstone boldly presented a set of resolutions pro- 
posing nothing less than the complete disestablishment 
of the Protestant Church in Ireland, and declaring it to 
be an Anglican anachronism and an abuse productive of 
much ill-will for England, the Liberals as a body flocked 
to his standard. The Irish, the Nationalists, the Radi- 
cals, the faction of the Liberals that broke with the party 
on the Russell Reform Bill, the Catholics and the secu- 
larists all came to Gladstone's support. The ministry 
opposed the resolutions on several grounds. It was 
argued that the state endowed church "prevented gov- 
ernment from degenerating into mere police," that the 
state connection could promote or insure freedom in 
religious practices and worship within the church itself; 
that disestablishment was an attack upon property 
rights; and that to disestablish the Irish Church would 
lead in time to disestablishment of the Church in Eng- 
land. Disraeli declared the crisis was in England rather 
than in Ireland. "The purpose is now avowed," he said, 
"and that by a powerful party, of destroying that sacred 
union between Church and State which has hitherto been 



ii4 England's Progress 

the chief means of our civilization and is the only se- 
curity of our religious liberty." 5 But on April 13, Glad- 
stone's first resolution was carried in the House by a 
majority of 65, and with this clear defeat Disraeli had 
either to resign or dissolve Parliament and appeal to the 
country on the question. He chose the latter course. 
Time was allowed at the request of the Prime Minister 
for passing into law a few bills nearing completion, such 
as the reform measures for Scotland and Ireland kin in 
principle and purpose to the recently enacted English 
electoral reform measure; and then Parliament was first 
prorogued (July 31) , and a little later (November 1 ith) 
was dissolved. In the general election in the fall the 
Conservatives suffered an overwhelming defeat, the new 
constituencies formed by the Reform Act of 1867 voting 
generally for the Liberals who gained the big majority 
of 112 seats. 

REFERENCES 

1. Walford: Life and Political Career of the Earl of Beacons- 

field, p. 185. 

2. E. Walford: E. of B., p. 171. 

3. H. W. Paul : Life of Gladstone, p. 125. 

4. Bright: Growth of Democracy 1837-1880, p. 433. 

5. Bright: Growth of Democracy 1 837-1 880, p. 445. 



CHAPTER IX 

GLADSTONE'S FIRST MINISTRY 

1868-1874 

Gladstone's first ministry extended over five years 
(December, 1868, to February, 1874). Believing he 
had been elected to power for the very purpose of paci- 
fying Ireland, he undertook at once a settlement of the 
Church question. The provisions of his measure in- 
cluded ( 1 ) the severance of the union existing between 
the churches of England and Ireland, (2) the immediate 
disendowment of the Irish Church; that is to say, that 
all its property, consisting of buildings, land, tithes and 
money, valued at near 16,000,000 pounds, was to be 
transferred to the nation, (3) the restoration of about 
10,000,000 pounds of this wealth to the new voluntary, 
independent church in compensation for vested interests 
and commutations of salaries, (4) the appropriation of 
the surplus to the support of hospitals, lunatic asylums, 
educational^ institutions for the deaf and dumb, and like 
agencies seeking to relieve unavoidable calamities for 
which the Poor Law did not already provide, and (5) 
the legal disestablishment of the Church of Ireland from 
January 1, 1871. A grant made by the state to the 
Catholic Training College of Maynooth and one to the 
Presbyterians, the Regium donum, were to cease also 
subject to compensation from the funds of the disestab- 
ished church. 

In the debates in the preceding session of Parliament 

"5 



n6 England's Progress 

it had been made clear that the Anglican Church in Ire- 
land could not possibly lay claim to being a "National 
Church." Only about one in ten of the population be- 
longed to the church. In Minister and Connaught only 
one in twenty; and in the most Protestant districts only 
one in five. In many parishes there were no Protestants 
at all, and in hundreds of them no Protestant church, 
and yet tithes were being collected in those parishes for 
the maintenance of this state church. "I myself pay 
tithes in 8 parishes," said Mr. G. Moore in Parliament 
in 1849; " m tne whole of these there is not one resident 
clergyman . . . and I do not believe that divine service 
according to the Protestant ritual has been celebrated 
in any of them since the Reformation." 1 The non-resi- 
dent clergymen were almost as numerous as the resident, 
and the average salary of the former class was consid- 
erably over eleven times the average salary of the latter 
class. An investigation a few years earlier had shown 
that over six and a half million of Catholics were being 
taxed to maintain a church that served about three quar- 
ters of a million Protestants. In 1868 the Church en- 
joyed a revenue from tithes and lands amounting to 600,- 
000 pounds. The forced collection of tithes from ten- 
ants before 1838 when the tithes were converted into a 
rent charge paid through the landlord was the cause of 
perpetual strife. In the fights of the Irish peasantry 
with the magistrates, soldiers, and police attempting to 
compel the payment of the parson's dues loss of life 
was of frequent occurrence. Sydney Smith thought that 
to this cause "in all probability a million of lives may 
have been sacrificed in Ireland." 2 The very existence of 
that Church reminded the Irish of their political subju- 
gation; it was a sign that they were a conquered people. 



Gladstone's First Ministry 117 

England certainly could not hope to gain their good will 
before this "badge of conquest" was removed. The 
truth but once faced the Government's obligation was 
plain to Gladstone. His bill had no great difficulty in 
passing the lower House but in the upper House the bill 
was fiercely attacked. In the opinion of some of the 
Lords it was a measure "whose political folly was only 
equalled by its moral turpitude," u a great national sin, 
a robbery and offence to Almighty God." Referring to 
the necessity of every man having to render an account 
of his deeds at the day of judgment, one bishop exclaimed, 
"I cannot, I dare not, I must not, I will not, vote for 
this Bill." One of the Peers would have the Queen, who 
was not in love with the bill, believe that the Coronation 
Oath forbade her ever giving assent to such a measure. 
Before the bill got through the Upper House not a 
few radical amendments and changes had been made, only 
to be thrown out for the most part, however, by the 
Commons when the altered bill was returned to the 
House. Gladstone, conscious of the support of the na- 
tion, was averse to yielding to the Lords to whom he re- 
ferred as "men who must have been living in a balloon" 
so ignorant were they of what the country had demanded. 
For some days there was a hopeless dead-lock between 
the two houses, but eventually conference effected conces- 
sions and compromise ; and the bill, modified, but in chief 
principles the same as when first introduced, became 
law, receiving the royal assent July 26, 1869. The 
resistance of the Lords gained for the new voluntary 
Irish Church additional property amounting to 850,000 
pounds. 

Gladstone next undertook to solve the knotty Irish 
land problem. Between the tenant and landlord classes 



1 1 8, England's Progress 

of Ireland there existed a deep-seated, long-lived, in- 
tense animosity, a burning hatred that for generations had 
expressed itself now and then in the meanest acts and 
basest crimes. On the one hand, for greed of gain, nu- 
merous unjust evictions; sometimes a merciless wholesale 
clearing of estates of helpless tenantry that meant dis- 
ease and death to hundreds; and on the other hand de- 
struction of property, killing of live stock, arson and mur- 
der. The Irish people could not forget that the land- 
owners as a class held land titles which had first been 
gained through military conquest and sheer confiscation. 
In the mind of the tenant the landlord was but a usurper; 
more commonly than not he was an absentee. The law 
of tenancy was peculiar. Over the greater part of Ire- 
land the prevalent though not universal rule was that all 
the improvements of an holding, such as ditching, fertili- 
zation of the soil, and building of dwelling houses, barns 
and fences were made, not as in England by the owner 
of the land or by the owner and occupier of the land 
jointly, but by the tenant alone, the landlord letting not 
a farm, but simply bare unimproved land. The cost of 
maintenance and repairs too whenever incurred fell alto- 
gether upon the tenant. And yet at the end of the ten- 
ancy or in case of eviction, conditions the tenant could 
not control, the landlord got possession of everything the 
tenant had put on the place. Now while this was law- 
ful, it certainly was not right. 

The law was founded on the theory of freedom of con- 
tract, and took for granted what was not true — that the 
Irish tenant was free to rent or not rent land as he 
chose. In the eye of the law of property and accord- 
ing to the economic doctrine of free competition, the land- 
lord owned his land and the tenant his labor to do what 



Gladstone's First Ministry 119 

he pleased with it and to get what price he could for 
its use. But as a matter of fact, the Irish tenant could 
not help himself. The landowners were few and inde- 
pendent; the tenants multitudinous in number and pov- 
erty-stricken. The latter class owning no land and hav- 
ing no opportunity in this industrially undeveloped coun- 
try to make even their subsistence except by tilling the 
soil were absolutely in the power of the former class. 
While there were numerous exceptions, the whole coun- 
try being considered, because in large tracts of Ireland 
estates were rented on a fair system; still as a rule the 
occupiers and workers of the land were mere tenants-at- 
will, not holding leases of several years' length, but brief 
tenures that could be terminated at a few months' notice. 
And evictions were numerous and for every possible 
cause. After the passage of the poor law of 1847 that 
gave the peasant a claim to relief and furnished the owner 
with an excuse for getting rid of him, there were in three 
years 160,000 persons evicted. 3 In one year in a single 
union, 15,000 persons were ejected." "In September, 
1847, 6000 notices of ejectment were served in a single 
union." The introduction of a new system of cultivat- 
ing the land, the substitution of pasturage for tillage, the 
use of machinery, the way men voted at elections, relig- 
ious differences, racial animosities, personal differences, 
spite, revenge, greed, the tenant's improvements have all 
caused evictions. As early as 1845 a commission ap- 
pointed by Peel to investigate the conditions on which 
land in Ireland was held had reported that "Improve- 
ments in Ireland were made by the tenants; that the land- 
lords had appropriated them by raising the rent; and 
that this constituted a grievance which resulted in 
crime." 4 



120 England's Progress 

At this time and again in 1853 a bill was introduced 
into Parliament with the purpose of correcting these evils 
but both were thrown out by the House of Lords. And 
in 1858 a motion introduced in Parliament for compen- 
sating the evicted tenant for his interest in the land was 
opposed as being merely a "bill for transferring the prop- 
erty of one set of persons to another of a different 
class." Up to 1870 no remedial measure had been 
passed. Gladstone's study of the problem led him to be- 
lieve that its solution was to be found in Irish custom 
rather than in English law. In the only part of Ireland 
that was at all thrifty and prosperous there obtained, he 
noted, the custom of leaving in undisputed possession a 
tenant so long as he paid his rent, and also of compensat- 
ing him for permanent improvements when surrendering 
his holding, whether he yielded it of his own free will or 
under compulsion. It was not the law, no written con- 
tracts or agreements were used, but it was the habit to 
compensate occupiers both for "disturbance" and "im- 
provements." The outgoing tenant had the right to sell 
to the in-coming tenant his "occupancy" and thus re- 
ceived payment for his improvements. As much as six 
years would be thus paid at times. The custom was not 
in keeping with English law, for it recognized dual- 
ownership in land. It denied to the landlord an indi- 
vidual title to his land and recognized the tenant's right 
in the property. But as it was a custom that was fair and 
one that the Irish people believed in, Gladstone deter- 
mined to give it the force of law. 

The Irish tenants wanted three things — the famous 
"Three F's" — (1) "Fixity of tenure"; that is to say, 
undisturbed occupancy so long as rent was paid. (2) 
"Freedom of Sale" ; that is, the tenant's liberty of selling 



Gladstone's First Ministry 12 1 

his interest, good-will and improvements. (3) "Fair 
rents"; that is, rent determined not by independent land- 
lords and dependent tenants, but by an impartial agent or 
tribunal. Underlying the discontent and criminal con- 
duct of many, no doubt, were also the hope and aim of 
finding some way into the full independent ownership 
of their holdings. Mr. Bright, President of the Board 
of Trade in Gladstone's cabinet, was of the opinion that 
only peasant proprietorship in land would allay disquiet 
in Ireland and urged that the state should assist the ten- 
ant in purchasing his plot of ground from the landlord. 
In consideration of these desires Gladstone in 1875 
introduced in the House and succeeded in having enacted 
into law without radical amendment his first Irish Land 
Bill. In principle it acknowledged for the first time that 
"the Irish farmer had an estate in his holdings," 5 for 
the "Ulster custom of tenant right, and similar customs 
in other parts of Ireland, received the sanction of law." 
It provided that a tenant evicted for any other reason 
than non-payment of rent should receive compensation 
both for disturbance of occupancy and for the value of 
unexhausted improvements; that a scale of compensa- 
tion for disturbance, "which varied from two to seven 
years' rent, according to the value of the holding" was 
to be fixed applicable to those districts in which custom 
did not already fix what was regarded as equitable ; that 
unless the contrary were proven by the landlord, im- 
provements would be regarded in law as made by the 
tenant; that nothing should be considered as an improve- 
ment to be compensated for unless it added to the rental 
value of the holding; that no tenant paying less annual 
rent than 50 pounds could by contract exclude himself 
from the benefits of the law; 6 and that a landlord could 



122 England's Progress 

only get free of the claims of the statute by granting a 
lease for 31 years. The occupier of the land thus be- 
came a "joint proprietor with the landlord." The bill 
had also purchase clauses by which provision was made 
for state loans to tenants to be repaid in small install- 
ments over a long tenure of years, through which aid 
they might buy their holdings from the landlords. 

The measure did not bring peace in Ireland. On the 
contrary, so many agrarian outrages were occurring in 
1870 and 1 87 1 that Parliament had to pass special acts 
for preserving the peace, which laws conferred enlarged 
powers on the police, magistrates, and lord-lieutenants, 
in respect to the arrest, trial and imprisonment of all sus- 
pected persons. Evictions still continued, for since the' 
law allowed ejectment in case of non-payment of rent, 
the landlord could still lawfully get rid of an undersir- 
able tenant by simply advancing the rent beyond his 
power to pay. Nor were the purchase clauses effective, 
the landlords not caring to sell to their tenants. "Only 
seven sales were made up to 1877." 7 But none the less, 
the act led in the right direction. Some of the prin- 
ciples revised and amended appeared in several later 
Acts, e.g., Gladstone's Land Acts of 1881 and 1886 and 
in Salisbury's Act of 1891. Through the later legisla- 
tion Gladstone established land courts to determine what 
was a fair rent ; secured the tenant in undisturbed posses- 
sion so long as this "judicial" rent was paid, and pro- 
vided that the government might advance to the tenant 
who would buy his holdings two-thirds of the purchase 
price, and give him forty-nine years to pay the state back 
through annual payments equivalent to three-fourths of 
the judicial rent. The Salisbury Act of 1891 went further 
still and provided that the state might advance the whole 



Gladstone's First Ministry 123 

of the purchase price, to be repaid in small installments 
as before covering a period of forty-nine years. Under 
these acts and a later one (1903) thousands of tenants 
have undertaken to buy plots of land. In the five years 
after 1891 there were some 35,000 purchasers; "from 
1903 to 1908 about 160,000." 8 

One of the most important measures of this ministry 
was the Educational Act of 1870, in chief part the work 
of Mr. Forster, vice president of the privy council. It 
affirmed two principles : ( 1 ) that the State was under ob- 
ligation to provide, or to see that there were provided 
by other agencies, the means for giving at least an ele- 
mentary education to all its children, and (2) that it 
had the power, when it chose to use it, to compel par- 
ents to send their children to school. The State was to 
be covered with good schools and the children were to be 
gotten into them. The nation had been giving some 
assistance to special schools for forty years. In 1870 
it was making grants amounting in all to about 500,- 
000 pounds. This state assistance went to the so-called 
"voluntary" or denominational schools, which were sup- 
ported mainly by gifts and tuition fees, and which were 
for the most part under the control of the Church of Eng- 
land. Among those receiving state grants, however, 
were some Wesleyan and some Catholic schools. The 
schools that got public aid were inspected by an 
official of the Educational Department, and were, 
as a rule, efficient in their work, as was true too with a 
few maintained only by fees and private gifts. A great 
many of the schools of the country, however, were not 
worthy of the name, being kept by persons "who spelled 
badly, who could scarcely write, and who could not cipher 
at all." 9 In some the "only educational apparatus that 



124 England's Progress 

could be seen was a Bible and a stick." And not only 
was it true that England did not have anything like 
enough good schools, but the children were not attend- 
ing the schools the nation had. In many of the large 
towns not more than one-third of the children of school 
age were receiving instruction. In 1869 out of the 
4,300,000 children of school 10 age in the kingdom, 1,300,- 
000 went to schools that were inspected and efficient; 
1,000,000 to those that were uninspected and inefficient; 
and 2,000,000 to no school at all. The general illiteracy 
of the people was recognized as a real menace to the 
state, now that the suffrage had been extended. 

While Mr. Forster had opponents who did not favor 
the compulsory feature in his plan, and a few who did 
not believe in gratuitous education, he met his chief ob- 
stacle in trying to satisfy the demands of various parties 
as to what religious instruction was to be given in the 
state-supported schools. There were some who wanted 
religion taught but did not believe that it counted for 
much unless it included instruction in dogma and denomi- 
national doctrine ; there were some who would have in- 
struction in the Bible, but would exclude the catechisms; 
and some who wanted the education to be purely secular. 
The demand of the powerful Birmingham Education 
League, 11 which was supported by many militant Dissen- 
ters, was that "education should be free, compulsory and 
secular." "Denominationalism in education' drew its 
chief support from the Church of England party. Ear- 
nest and long continued were the debates on the religious 
question. The bill was introduced February 17, but it 
was July 22 when in amended form it passed its third 
reading in the House of Commons, and August 9th, when 
having passed all its stages, it received the royal assent. 



Gladstone's First Ministry 125 

The measure as enacted was a compromise. It provided 
that the country should be divided into districts, and in 
these districts school boards should be established elected 
by the rate-payers, and having the powers to aid or build 
schools and to levy local taxes or rates, for school pur- 
poses. In districts where there were sufficient schools 
already no others were to be built, the denominational 
or voluntary schools when submitting to state inspection 
being aided as before only with more liberality, their 
grants from the state being almost doubled. These de- 
nominational schools were denied any assistance from the 
local rates; but they were recognized as a part of and 
incorporated into the State educational system. Their 
support was drawn from voluntary contributions, tuition 
fees, and state grants. In districts where more schools 
were needed than voluntary support would supply, board- 
schools were built to be supported by state or parliamen- 
tary grants, by tuition fees and by local taxation. These 
were not free schools, for parents had to pay in part 
for their children's education. In districts and sections 
of districts where the parents were too poor to pay tui- 
tion fees, free board schools were to be established. As 
to school attendance "permissive compulsion" was en- 
trusted to the school boards; that is to say, there was 
local option in the matter, the board of each district hav- 
ing the power to form by-laws compelling attendance 
or not as it saw fit. The adoption of "conscience clauses" 
and time tables met the religious difficulty. The denomi- 
national schools were allowed to continue to teach their 
religious tenets ; but this religious instruction should take 
place at a particular hour, say either at the opening or 
closing of school day and parents who did not want their 
children to receive this instruction were given the right of 



126 England's Progress 

excusing their children from the services. In the board 
schools "no catechism or other distinctive formulary 
should be taught," but the Bible could be read and ex- 
plained, though this must be done too at a particular 
hour and parents were permitted if they chose so to do, 
to withdraw their children at that time. The Act was a 
great step in advance. The general effect of this and of 
later Acts (1880, 1891 and 1902) of which it was the 
basis has been practically an entire removal of illiteracy 
in the nation. While in 1843 about one-third of the men 
and one-half of the women were illiterate, in 1903 only 
one-thirty-third of the women, and one-fifteenth of the 
men were illiterate. A child of 14 that cannot read, 
write and cipher is scarcely to be found. In 1880 the 
attendance of children of school age under 13 was made 
universally compulsory; and in 1891 public elementary 
education was made free. 

A radical revision of the Act of 1870 was made in 
1902. 12 By the 1870 law the amount of the parliamen- 
tary grants given to a school, whether a denominational 
or a board school, was proportioned to the amount 
raised in other ways. If the board school raised more 
by local taxes they received larger state grants; and if 
the denominational schools, which were not allowed aid 
from the local rates, could raise more by voluntary sub- 
scription, they received larger state grants. At the 
first and for some years this arrangement worked to the 
advantage of the denominational schools, most of which 
were Church of England institutions well supported by 
friends, whose gifts made it possible to secure larger 
proportions of the state grants than board schools could 
get by increase of local taxes. But in the long run the 
tables were turned, for in time more could be raised by 



Gladstone's First Ministry 127 

the increase in local rates than by voluntary gifts, and 
as a consequence the board schools got more of the state 
grants than the denominational schools. The Church- 
men, numerous and powerful in their political life of the 
nation, considered it unfair that their schools should be 
refused aid from local taxation, and by continued, vig- 
orous agitation, they gained for themselves in 1897 an 
additional subsidy, and in 1902 a considerable advantage 
in the law. By the act of 1902 the school boards were 
abolished and their powers conferred on the county and 
town councils, the regular local government organiza- 
tions. The denominational as well as the board schools 
were to be supported by the local taxes, as well as by 
the state grants. The control and direction of the schools 
were placed by the local government councils, in the 
hands of committees; for the board schools, a commit- 
tee, composed of members of the county or borough coun- 
cil and for the denominational school, a committee of six, 
two of whom were representatives of the county or bor- 
ough council, and four of whom were representatives of 
the denomination. Since this arrangement for the de- 
nominational school gave the control of money raised 
from the public by local rates for school purposes to a 
committee, two-thirds of whose members were usually 
churchmen of a particular denomination, and in the great 
majority of cases represented the Church of England, 
there arose at once and there has remained intense hos- 
tility to the measure from the secularists and Non-Con- 
formists of the nation. 

In 1 87 1 Oxford and Cambridge Universities were 
emancipated from the cramping influence of sectarian- 
ism by the passage of a bill relieving their members of 
all religious tests. Gladstone had hitherto been opposed 



128 England's Progress 

to repealing the law that allowed only churchmen the 
right of sitting in convocation or holding a college fel- 
lowship ; but feeling the growing pressure of the non-con- 
formists after the enactment of the Educational Act, not- 
ing the widening acceptance among the people of the 
"principle that education should be national and unsec- 
tarian," and seeing that his party wanted the religious 
restrictions at the Universities removed, he changed his 
position in 1871 and himself supported as a government 
measure the bill of that year. The law enacted pro- 
vided that degrees and lay university or college offices 
should be open to all students alike, subscription to no 
religious formulary of faith being demanded. With the 
exception of the requirement that the Theological Faculty 
must be all members of the state established Church, it 
removed all religious tests for scholars, fellows, tutors 
and professors. Clerical fellowships were still retained; 
some of the Heads of Houses were still required to be 
clergymen; and the Church of England was formally 
recognized as the official religion of the Universities and 
Colleges. 

Another beneficial reform of Gladstone's first minis- 
try was the reorganization of the army effected in 1871 
and 1872, the work in the main of Mr. Cardwell, the 
War Secretary. The Franco-Prussian War impressed 
the Secretary with the necessity of England's being bet- 
ter prepared for emergencies. The weaknesses in the 
military system were (1) want of reserves, there not 
being enough soldiers to provide a home army of de- 
fence and also an army for service abroad in distant fron- 
tiers of the Empire where small wars were of frequent 
occurrence, (2) divided command, the national force or 
militia and volunteers being not under the jurisdiction of 



Gladstone's First Ministry 129 

the Secretary of War and Commander-in-Chief, but under 
the command of the Lord Lieutenants of the counties, 
(3) the legalized purchase of promotion in rank, com- 
missions in the army being bought and sold at regula- 
tion prices to the advancement of the rich and to the 
detriment of the service. This purchase system through 
which officers bought advance in rank by paying so much 
to seniors who would retire or get a promotion, had been 
established by royal warrant generations before and 
was often defended on the ground of maintaining in the 
army "the high social standing of the officers and the 
due influence of wealth." But such a defense was an ex- 
cuse rather than, a reason; and since the system was 
against merit, leaving the best soldiers if poor in the 
lowest positions to the inefficiency of the army, the Sec- 
retary prepared to abolish it. He calculated that the na- 
tion would have to pay out about 7,000,000 pounds in 
compensation to officers for their vested interests. Since 
the officers had bought their commissions and could sell 
them at certain values, the offices being regarded as so 
much private property, the government with liberality 
decided fully to reimburse the officers for their interests, 
though the nation was thus buying from them a control 
of its own army officers. When Mr. Cardwell's meas- 
ure, having received the approval of the House of Com- 
mons after considerable opposition from the friends of 
army officers, was about blocked in the House of Lords, 
the Prime Minister, supported by his Cabinet, advised 
the Queen to abolish the purchase system by issuing a 
new royal warrant which would displace the old one that 
established and regulated the practice. The Queen saw 
the wisdom of the step and issued the warrant: and since 
the Lords desired the army officers to get their full com- 



130 England's Progress 

pensation which would not happen unless the bill be- 
came law, they now promptly but reluctantly passed the 
measure also. Mr. Cardwell abolished also dual con- 
trol in the army, transferring to the Crown the military 
authority of the Lord Lieutenants of counties, and plac- 
ing the local militia, volunteers, yeomanry with the regu^ 
lar forces under the single control of the Commander-in- 
Chief and War Office. In his organization of a reserve 
force, and introduction of shorter service for recruits 
appears the foundation of the modern English army. The 
recruits were to enlist not for twenty years as before, but 
for twelve only, — seven in the standing force with the 
colors, and five with the reserve. The regular army 
would always be composed then of younger men; it would 
serve as a military training school ; and the reserve would 
be an experienced force of some 40,000 or more at hand 
to swell the army's strength when called on in case of 
emergency. The country was divided into districts, 13 
each of which was to have its battalion of the line, two 
militia regiments, and local volunteers under the same 
officer, the Lieutenant Colonel. With the intention of 
having half the army always at home he established the 
system of linked battalions. He divided each regiment 
of the line into two battalions, one to be kept at home, 
while the other was to be kept abroad, but both men and 
officers were to be interchangeable. Valuable improve- 
ments were also made in the commissariat department, 
in transport provisions, and in regulations concerning 
qualifications for obtaining commissions. 

Other fruits of the reform activity of this ministry 
were (1) the opening of the departments of the civil 
service to public competition; (2) the repeal of the Eccle- 
siastical Titles Act of 185 1 that forbade bishops of the 



Gladstone's First Ministry 131 

Roman Catholic Church assuming territorial titles in 
England; (3) the Trades-Union Act, which legalized 
unions and defined their rights and limitations; (4) the 
Ballot Act, which introduced secret voting, and thus les- 
sened intimidation and bribery; (5) the Judicature Act, 
which brought the several superior Courts, such as 
Court of Common Law and of Equity, Court of Admi- 
ralty, Court of Bankruptcy, and Probate and Divorce 
Court, together to form one Supreme Court of Judica- 
ture, itself to be divided into a High Court of Justice 
and a Court of Appeal, a centralization that rendered 
judicial actions and procedure cheaper, simpler and more 
equitable; (6) the Licensing Bill, which regulated the 
hours for the closing of public-houses, or gin shops, made 
provisions against the sale of adulterated products and 
organized town and country licensing agencies; (7) the 
establishment of four holidays in the year, called bank- 
holidays, Easter Monday, Whit Monday, the day after 
Christmas called Boxing Day, and the First Monday in 
August; (8) a Miners' Regulation Act, which gave pro- 
tection to men underground by requiring the certified 
competency of managers; (9) the introduction of half- 
penny post cards and of cheaper postal rates for news- 
papers; (10) retrenchment in army and navy expendi- 
tures; (11) the creation of a permanent Railway Com- 
mission, composed of three members nominated by the 
Crown to "decide legal disputes between the railway 
companies and private traders." 

Many ministerial bills were lost during the latter part 
of the ministry, a notable one among them being the 
Irish University Bill of 1873. Gladstone proposed to 
establish a great University which should incorporate 
in one body several educational institutions, among them 



132 England's Progress 

the Protestant establishment Trinity College, the Roman 
Catholic University, and the unsectarian colleges at Bel- 
fast and Cork. The University was to be a teaching 
as well as an examining body, an undenominational in- 
stitution where Protestant and Catholic were to labor 
together in harmony. There were to be no religious tests 
whatever for professors or students in the University and 
all honors and emoluments were to be thrown open to 
competitors of every creed. The University was to be 
under the control of a body of twenty-eight members ap- 
pointed at first by Parliament but later through a system 
that might eventually have led to Catholic control. There 
was to be in the University neither a chair of theology nor 
of moral philosophy, nor of modern history. These 
subjects were to be taught only in the incorporated col- 
leges and a professor or instructor was liable to be sus- 
pended or deposed if in speech or in writing he willfully 
offended the religious convictions of his pupils or other 
members of the University. These foolish "gagging 
clauses" were displeasing to many of the Liberals as 
well as Conservatives; the Roman Catholics were not 
enthusiastic over "undenominational education" ; and the 
Irish Presbyterians were opposed to the whole project. 
The bill was rejected, though by a close vote, 287 to 284. 
Gladstone chose to regard this bill as a vital measure 
and therefore tendered his resignation to the Queen. 
But Disraeli, the Conservative leader, was unwilling to 
try to lead in a House of Commons having so great a ma- 
jority of Liberals. Not wishing to become prime min- 
ister on the condition of at once dissolving Parliament for 
a new general election, and also rightly divining that the 
country was tired of the Liberal government and that 
a little longer tenure would but bring it into further 



Gladstone's First Ministry 133 

discredit, he unconditionally refused to take office just 
then and Gladstone was compelled to continue at his 
post. 

The government was fast waning in popularity. Its 
handling of foreign affairs had been much criticized. 
While the British public were pleased with the govern- 
ment's observing a strict neutrality in regard to the 
Franco-Prussian War, they did not like at all the fact that 
at the close the Russian government was able coolly 
to defy England by disavowing the Black Sea clauses of 
the treaty of Paris, made 1856 at the close of the Cri- 
mean War. By this treaty, whose guarantors were Eng- 
land and France, Russia was forbidden to have war 
vessels in the Euxine ; but now that France was conquered 
and overrun by the Germans, and the Emperor Napoleon 
III overthrown, Russia declared her intention to disre- 
gard the engagement and build a war-fleet in these waters. 
The affront was humiliating to English pride, but as 
England stood alone and could ill afford to make it a 
reason for going to war nothing could be done about it. 
Nor was the nation pleased with the results of the gov- 
ernment's arbitration experiences. The decisions of the 
arbitrating boards in two disputes with America were 
both unfavorable to England. One dispute was about 
the possession of San Juan Island, near the coast of 
British Columbia. The United States got the island. 
The other controversy was concerning the claims made 
by the United States for compensation for damage done 
Federal interests and trade by confederate privateers 
during the Civil War. The arbitrators in 1872 ordered 
England to pay the United States more than 3,000,000 
pounds. In having these controversies judicially settled 
Gladstone won eventually a deserved and enduring title to 



134 England's Progress 

world fame, but at the time the Prime Minister lost popu- 
larity in England. British public opinion considered the 
awards unfair and liked the government less on account 
of them. The public welcomed too a rest from the cease- 
less activity of the government in domestic legislation. 
While Disraeli's arraignment of the Liberal Ministry, 
when the Irish University was under discussion in 1873, 
was bitter, unfair and exaggerated, it did reflect the truth 
that Gladstone's reforming energy had disquieted busi- 
ness and disturbed the conservative feeling of English- 
men. "You have had four years of it," he said, "you have 
despoiled churches, you have threatened every corpora- 
tion and endowment in the country, you have examined 
into everybody's affairs, you have criticised every pro- 
fession, and vexed every trade, no one is certain of his 
property, no one knows what duties he may have to per- 
form tomorrow." 14 

Conscious that his ministry was discredited, Gladstone 
decided to seek support in a new appeal to the people, and 
surprised everybody by suddenly announcing in January, 
1874, a dissolution of Parliament. He promised the 
people that if returned to power he would abolish the 
income tax, and reorganize more equitably local taxation. 
His appeal did not win the electorate. The masses were 
little moved by a pledge to lower an income tax, and sev- 
eral influential classes of voters fought him. Those 
Churchmen who disfavored his disestablishment of the 
Irish Church, those Dissenters who did not like the ad- 
vantage given the Anglican Church in the Education Act, 
the military group opposed to his army reform, the self- 
assertive imperialists who wanted England to count for 
more in foreign affairs, the steady-going business men and 
conservative property holders whose profits and interests 



Gladstone's First Ministry 135 

had been disturbed by recent legislation, and the owners 
of the saloons and gin-shops whose trade had been in- 
terfered with, all threw their votes against the Liberals. 
The Conservatives won a splendid victory, gaining a ma- 
jority of 50 in the House of Commons. According to 
Gladstone, the defeat was due to the opposition of the 
saloon-keepers and brewers, "to a torrent of gin and 
beer"; according to Disraeli "to incessant and harassing 
legislation," too much "meddling interference." 15 



1 
2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 
1 1 

12 
13 
14 
15 



REFERENCES 

Bright: Growth of Democracy 1837-1880, p. 446. 
McCarthy: Epoch of Reform, p. 99. 
Walpole: History of England, Vol. 5, p. 207. 
H. Paul: History of Modern England, Vol. 3, p. 204. 
H. Paul: History of Modern England, Vol. 3, p. 206. 
H. Paul: History of Modern England, Vol. 3, p. 207. 
Hazen: Europe Since 1815, p. 477. 
Hazen: Europe Since 181 5, p. 506. 
H. Paul: History of Modern England, Vol. 3, p. 212. 
Hazen: Europe Since 18 15, p. 478-479. 
Low and Sanders: Political History of England, p. 246. 
Hazen: Europe Since 1815, 513-514. 
Bright: Growth of Democracy 1 837-1 880, p. 471. 
Bright: Growth of Democracy 1 837-1 880, p. 495. 
Low and Sanders: Hunt & Poole Political History of Eng- 
land, Vol. 12, p. 254. 



CHAPTER X 



DISRAELI'S SECOND MINISTRY 

1874-1880 

The Conservatives were in power for six years (1874— 
1880). Disraeli announced as the principles of the 
party's policy: (1) the maintenance of our institutions, 
(2) the preservation of the empire, and (3) the improve- 
ment of the condition of the people. In keeping with 
the third principle, the ministry early passed a few mod- 
erate measures of benefit to farmers and artisans. They 
enacted the Laborers' Dwelling Bill, which aimed to 
provide better houses for the workmen of cities; a Labor 
Law Amendment, which declared that "a combination in 
trades-disputes to do an act not in itself punishable as 
a crime" should no longer be liable to punishment as a 
"conspiracy" 1 and which lessened the number of breaches 
of contract on the part of a workman that could be 
punished criminally; a Public Health Act, which was a 
sort of codification of numerous health measures; a 
land bill that simplified the processes of land exchanges 
and of registration of titles; the Friendly Societies Bill 
that provided for supervision of benefit associations in 
order to secure better the funds entrusted to them by the 
thrifty poor ; and an Agricultural Holdings Bill, by which 
farmers might at the end of a tenancy get some return 
for capital expended on improvements that were not yet 
exhausted. Radical reforms were tabooed by this min- 
istry, their motto "rest in domestic legislation" being 

136 



Disraeli's Second Ministry, 1874-1880 137 

pretty generally observed. But in foreign affairs the 
government was decidedly active. 

In 1875 the Prime Minister suddenly surprised Eng- 
land with the wonderful news that the government had 
purchased from the Khedive of Egypt 177,000 shares — 
nearly half control — of the Suez Canal for the sum of 
4,000,000 pounds. The shares were about to be taken 
by a body of Frenchmen, when Disraeli intervened. 
His offer by telegraph of millions of ready cash was 
gladly accepted by the financially distressed Khedive. 
For England, the leading naval and maritime power of 
the world and the governor of India, the purchase was 
a master-stroke of imperial policy. The loud praises 
the Premier got from the press and people were deserved. 

A prominent feature of Disraeli's policy was the mag- 
nification of England's position in Asia. He favored the 
plan of having the Prince of Wales make a tour through 
India. A considerable sum of money having been granted 
for the purpose, the visit was paid in the fall of 1875. 
The royal progress throughout the country was conducted 
on a grand scale. Costly, pompous, magnificent, it aimed 
at impressing the princes and inhabitants of the prov- 
inces with the strength and prestige of Great Britain, 
and also in making clear to European powers that Eng- 
land highly valued this Asiatic continent. It was during 
the Prince's visit when gratifying accounts of his recep- 
tion filled the public mind, that Disraeli, in 1876, intro- 
duced his Royal Titles Bill, which would add to the 
Queen's title the high-sounding phrase "Empress of 
India." There were many who objected to the proposal; 
some ridiculing it as cheap, barbaric trumpery; others 
declaring that the particular word "Empress" was ex- 
tremely distasteful to Englishmen. But Disraeli argued 



138 England's Progress 

that precedent for such a change was set in the act of 
Union with Ireland; that in his judgment there was ne- 
cessity for some external mark of the position of the 
British ruler as supreme over many sovereign princes 
of India; that this necessity had existed ever since the 
government of India was transferred from the East India 
Company to the Crown in 1858; that the new title would 
show the unanimous determination of the people of Eng- 
land to retain connection with the Indian Empire; that 
the Queen was empress in India in fact and should be so 
in name; and that the Queen herself favored the change 
in title. The bill was carried, and on New Year's Day, 
1877, at Delhi, Calcutta, Madras and Bombay the new 
dignity was formally and grandly proclaimed. 

The Royal Titles Bill won for the Prime Minister 
the warm friendship of his Sovereign. At the close of his 
first ministry Victoria had offered to raise Disraeli to 
the peerage. This honor he then declined for himself, 
but accepted for his wife on whom was conferred the title 
of "Viscountess Beaconsfield." In August, 1878, how- 
ever he accepted the honor and was created "Earl of 
Beaconsfield," passing then from the House of Commons, 
in which he had been a prominent figure for about 40 
years, into the House of Lords, remaining still however 
at the head of the government. 

His last speech in the Commons sounded the impe- 
rialistic note clear and strong. Some fearful revelations 
had just been made of the brutal methods of warfare 
employed by the Turks against the Bulgarian Christians 
who were revolting against Ottoman misrule. Volun- 
teer brigands and Circassian irregulars of barbarous 
nature had been turned loose to wreak their savage will 
on defenseless villages. Twelve thousand persons had 



Disraeli's Second Ministry, 1 874-1880 139 

been killed in one district; near a hundred Christian girls 
had been seized and carried off by the vicious Turks; 
rapes, wholesale massacres, and every heinous crime 
appeared in the "Bulgarian Atrocities." The Conserva- 
tive government was fiercely criticized by the Liberals, 
because the ministry was so careful to maintain a friendly 
attitude toward Turkey, and had at first dismissed as 
idle rumors and exaggerations the Bulgarian reports. 
"But," answered Disraeli, "I am sure that as long as 
England is ruled by English parties who understand the 
principles on which our Empire is founded, our influence 
in that part of the world can never be looked upon with 
indifference." . . . "Those who suppose that England 
would ever uphold or at this moment particularly is 
upholding Turkey from blind superstition, and from a 
want of sympathy with the highest aspirations of hu- 
manity, are deceived. What our duty is at this critical 
moment is to maintain the Empire of England. Nor 
will we ever agree to any step, though it may obtain for 
a moment comparative quiet and a false prosperity, that 
hazards the existence of that Empire." 2 

D'Israeli believed that the safety of the Empire was 
threatened in the East by Russia's advance on Turkey. 
The latter country was bankrupt. It had experienced 
several palace revolutions, two sultans being deposed 
one after another, one of them murdered; and it had 
been forced to fight insurrections in several of its prov- 
inces, in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro and Servia. 
The Russians were ready to help the Greek Christians, 
their brethren, in winning deliverance from the heavy 
hand of the infidel Turk. Emissaries from Russia had 
taken part in the Bosnian revolt and many thousands of 
Russian volunteers under the command of a Russian 



140 England's Progress 

general had come to the aid of the Servians. This inter- 
ference in Turkish affairs was not to the liking of Eng- 
land. The treaty of Paris made in 1856 at the end of 
the Crimean War was pointed to wherein the Powers had 
promised not to ''intervene in the internal affairs of 
Turkey." But Russia would have it remembered that 
this treaty had been made in view of the Sultan's solemn 
vow to "improve the lot of his Christian subjects" and 
that the promise had not been in the least observed. 
Russia felt that, treaty or no treaty, the cause of hu- 
manity demanded restraining the barbarous tyranny of 
the Turk. After several vain attempts by the diplomats 
through correspondence and exchange of notes to bring 
the concerted action of European powers to bear in 
effecting reforms in Turkey Russia announced her in- 
tention of undertaking the work single-handed, and on 
April 24, 1877, declared war on Turkey. The English 
ministry was disposed to interpret the move as inspired 
more by a desire for Constantinople than by a love of 
Christianity. Russia's army took Kars, passed through 
Roumania, crossed the Danube, was checked at Plevna 
for a few months, then burst over the Balkan mountains 
in the depth of winter, swept across the plains of Ru- 
melia, captured Adrianople January 20, pressed on 
to the very seaboard, and forced peace terms March 3, 
1878, with their utterly discomfited foes at San Stefano 
within a few leagues of the capital itself. The peace 
treaty provided for: 

(1) A war indemnity to Russia of 12,000,000 pounds. 

(2) Accession to Russia of certain places in Asia, Kars, 
Batoum, Ardahan, Bayazid. 

(3) The independent status as states of Servia, Monte- 
negro and Roumania. 



Disraeli's Second Ministry, 1874-1B80 14I 

(4) The enlargement of Bulgaria, which was to be an 
autonomous state, though tributary to the Sultan, 
and which was to reach right down to the Aegean 
Sea, thus including the better part of European 
Turkey between Greece and Servia. "Fifty thou- 
sand troops would occupy it by way of precaution 
for two years." 3 

These Russian advances were very unwelcome to Eng- 
land. The predominance of the Muscovite in Turkey 
was deemed a threat to her control in the Mediterranean, 
and to her interests in Egypt and in India. The enlarge- 
ment of Bulgaria was especially objected to since it was 
believed that Russia intended finding through the new 
state at some future day an outlet to the Aegean Sea. 
England's Prime Minister made up his mind to curb 
Russia even if the effort necessitated war. In January, 
1878, the government asked for a supplementary grant 
of 6,000,000 pounds for army and navy purposes, which 
was after some debate voted. In the same month the 
British fleet was ordered to the Dardanelles, and three 
weeks later to Constantinople. The Mediterranean fleet 
was strengthened by additional ships and naval and mili- 
tary preparations were pressed ahead in dock-yard, arse- 
nal and camp. The ministry took the ground that no one 
nation could settle the Eastern Question without the con- 
sent of the other European Powers and that Russia would 
have to submit the San Stefano Treaty to the consid- 
eration of a conference of all the Powers. Austria was 
quite eager for such a conference, hoping some gain 
for herself, nor was Germany averse to the plan. For 
awhile Russia was disposed to ignore the demand, but 
when England called out the reserves and ordered 7,000 
native troops from India to Malta, she decided to yield. 



142 England's Progress 

The conference met at Berlin, June 13, 1878, under the 
presidency of Prince Bismarck. Lord Beaconsfield went 
in person as one of the representatives from England. 
The revised treaty provided : 4 

( 1 ) That the Bulgarian state should be cut up, two parts 
of it, Macedonia and Eastern Rumelia, being re- 
turned or left to Turkey. Macedonia was to be 
under the direct rule of Turkey; Eastern Rumelia 
was to manage its own affairs but under a governor 
appointed by the Sultan ; and Bulgaria was to be self- 
governed and ruled by an elected prince, approved 
by the Sultan and the Powers, and was to have its 
own army and fortresses. 

(2) Bosnia and Herzegovina were placed under Aus- 
trian control, a reward promised by Russia for Aus- 
trian neutrality during the war. 

(3) Greece was to have Thessaly, though the Sultan 
managed to postpone the gift for about three years. 

(4) Roumania, Servia, Montenegro were recognized as 
independent states, entirely free from Turkey. 

(5) Russia was allowed to keep Ardahan, Kars, Batoum, 
and Armenia but had to restore to Turkey Bay- 
azid. 

(6) Complete religious freedom was guaranteed all 
Christian subjects by the Ottoman government. 
During the conference there was announced pub- 
licly a secret agreement only a few days old between 
England and Turkey, which might be considered a 
part of the general arrangements made. 

(7) Turkey promised to introduce the long promised 
reforms in government, and also allowed to Eng- 
land the occupation of the Island of Cyprus, while 
England in turn undertook for the future, if need 
be by force of arms, to guarantee the integrity of 
the Asiatic dominions of the Ottoman empire. 

This radical revision of the San Stefano Treaty was 
humiliation for Russia, glory for Britain. The Prime 



Disraeli's Second Ministry, 1 874-1 880 143 

Minister stood forth in the eyes of the world a con- 
queror, and was received with enthusiastic laudation on 
returning to England, bringing as he termed it "peace 
with honor." The event marked the high-water mark of 
Beaconsfield's popularity and influence. In the last years 
of his ministry his government suffered in public esteem 
on account of disasters experienced in efforts for fron- 
tier advances in Afghanistan and South Africa. In Zu- 
luland six companies of the 24th regiment were sur- 
rounded by thousands of savage warriors and every man 
of them but six cut down. Disraeli's imperialism and 
colonial ambition seemed dangerous and vulgar to some. 
In January 25, 1878, Lord Carnarvon, the Colonial Sec- 
retary, resigned from the Cabinet for just this reason. 

But it was the government's recognized inability to 
cope with the Irish malcontents that weakened it more 
than anything else. Under the leadership of Charles 
Stewart Parnell the Irish members of Parliament had or- 
ganized with the purpose of obstructing as far as they 
could all business whatsoever until consideration was 
given their demand for Home Rule. This party was sup- 
ported by friends in America and was backed by a well- 
constituted land-league among the Irish people. The 
Irish faction in the House of Commons, by making dila- 
tory motions, delivering endless speeches, and repeatedly 
calling for divisions blocked the ministry's bills, and suc- 
ceeded thus in giving the nation a depreciated sense of 
the government's strength. Then the country was suf- 
fering from agricultural depression; harvests were poor; 
employment was scarce; prices were low; and in Ireland 
there was famine. Conscious of the growth of adverse 
opinion toward his government, Lord Beaconsfield in 
March, 1880, dissolved his Parliament, which would soon 



144 England's Progress 

end its legal term of seven years anyway. He hoped to 
gain in the election a new lease of power by presenting to 
the nation the Irish demand for Home Rule as an effort 
to break up the Empire and by intimating that his politi- 
cal opponents, the Liberals, were not out of sympathy 
with this sort of a programme. In his address to the elec- 
tors, he "warned the country that a danger in its ulti- 
mate results scarcely less disastrous than pestilence and 
famine, distracted Ireland; a portion of its population 
was endeavoring to sever the constitutional tie that united 
it to Great Britain. . . . It is to be hoped that all men of 
light and leading will resist this destructive doctrine 
. . . and yet there are some who challenge the expediency 
of the imperial character of this realm !" 5 Gladstone 
replied to these "dark allusions" that "those who endan- 
gered the union with Ireland were the party that main- 
tained there an alien church, an unjust land-law, and fran- 
chises inferior to our own: and that the true supporters 
of the union are those who firmly uphold the supreme 
authority of Parliament, but exercise that authority to 
bind the three nations by the indissoluble tie of liberal 
and equal laws." Gladstone was in his seventy-first year. 
None the less the veteran statesman fiercely waged battle 
addressing day after day in his famous Midlothian Cam- 
paign vast concourses of people and stirring to its depths 
the thought of the nation, The Liberals swept the coun- 
try; 349 of them being sent to Parliament as against 243 
Conservatives, and 60 Home Rulers. 

REFERENCES 

1. Bright: Growth of Democracy 1837-1880, p. 515. 

2. Bright: Growth of Democracy, 1 837-1 880, p. 552. 

3. Paul: Modern History, Vol. 4, p. 45. 

4. Low and Sanders, p. 291. 

5. Morley: Life of Gladstone, Vol. 2, p. 160. 



CHAPTER XI 

GLADSTONE'S SECOND MINISTRY 

1880-1885 

Gladstone's second administration (April, 18 80- June, 
1885) differed from his first in that external and mili- 
tary rather than domestic affairs occupied chiefly the gov- 
ernment's attention. As to home reforms, the minis- 
try's work, though important, may be told with brevity. 
Artisans received benefit from an employers' liability act 
which increased the responsibility of the employer in 
cases of accident; the tenants were pleased with a new 
law that gave them equal privilege with the landlord in 
killing game that injured their crops; an old Non-Con- 
formist controversy was brought to a just end by the pas- 
sage of a burial bill which first gave Dissenters equal 
right with Churchmen in the interment of their dead in 
the church cemetery, burials being authorized "either 
without religious service or with such Christian and or- 
derly service as the person responsible might think fit" 1 ; 
a married woman's property bill was passed which gave 
married women a legal equality with men as regards their 
incomes and what they made or inherited; and bene- 
ficial acts were passed for the prevention of bribery and 
corrupt methods at elections; for administering the es- 
tates of bankrupts; and for giving to outgoing tenants 
fair compensation for improvements of a permanent 
character made by them on their holdings. The Third 
Reform Act (1884) and the Redistribution of Seats Act 
(1885) were important and natural complements of the 

14s 



146 England's Progress 

Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867. The Act of 1884 gave 
the ballot to the better class of agricultural laborers in 
the counties, increasing the electorate by two and a half 
million voters, and established a uniform householder 
and a uniform lodger franchise over the whole nation. 
The Redistribution Act made parliamentary representa- 
tion less unequal by taking one hundred and sixty seats 
from the smaller boroughs and distributing these among 
the more populous counties and towns, and by forming a 
number of single member districts. 

The ministry's external troubles were numerous and 
difficult. Rebellion occurred in the Transvaal, South 
Africa; civil strife and disorder appeared in Egypt; re- 
ligious fanatics spread warfare in the Soudan; delicate 
questions of foreign policy arose in dealing with Russia; 
and across St. George's Channel there was again turmoil 
and crime. The South African difficulty was a direct out- 
come of the imperialistic policy of the Beaconsfield min- 
istry. In 1877 that government had decreed that the 
young republic of the Dutch beyond the Vaal River, 
formed mainly of farmers and peasants ("Boers") 
should be annexed to the British empire. The step was 
not approved by a considerable proportion of the English 
people, and was bitterly opposed by practically all the 
Dutch. The Transvaal state had come into being in an 
effort of the Boers to escape English control. On three 
separate occasions in 1836, 1842 and in 1848, communi- 
ties of the Dutch with their cattle, slaves, farm imple- 
ments and other belongings had trekked out of a colony 
where British rule was becoming strong and was interfer- 
ing with their customs and institutions (such for example 
as the holding of slaves), and had migrated farther into 
the interior, hoping to build a state of their own and to 



Gladstone's Second Ministry, 1880-188 5 147 

lead a life altogether unmolested by English intruders. 
The Dutch had migrated from Cape Colony to Natal, 
then from Natal to the Orange River country, and fin- 
ally from the Orange River country to the Transvaal 
region, only to find themselves every time overtaken by 
the English. The reason given in 1877 for the annexa- 
tion of the republic was that the Boers engaged in fre- 
quent border wars with native tribes, and that these wars 
tended to incite hostile feeling and attacks from the 
African tribes against neighboring English colonies. In- 
dependence for the Boers was declared to mean inse- 
curity for other British colonists. The annexation was 
regarded by the Dutch as a high-handed outrage, nor 
was their hatred of the act lessened by the equivocal and 
unflattering promise of being given "the fullest legislative 
privileges compatible with the circumstances of the coun- 
try and the intelligence of the people." Seven thousand 
out of the eight thousand qualified electors of the republic 
signed a petition asking the English government for a 
restoration of their independence. But their appeal was 
of no avail with the Conservative ministry. In 1879 and 
again in the spring of 1880, as the administration drew 
to its close the Boers were given to understand that "The 
Transvaal territory should continue forever to be an in- 
tegral part of the Queen's dominions in South Africa," 2 
that "the Vaal river would flow backwards through the 
Drakensberg sooner than the British would be withdrawn 
from the Transvaal." 

The change of ministry in 1880 gave to the Boers new 
hope. They knew that the Liberal party was opposed to 
Beaconsfield's extreme imperial policy, and that the new 
Prime Minister did not sanction the method employed in 
acquiring the Transvaal, having referred to it during the 



148 England's Progress 

electoral campaign as having "been obtained by means dis- 
honorable to the character of the country." But how- 
ever much the Prime Minister may have sympathized 
with the Boers and appreciated the justness of their 
claim, he found on entering office that the facts of the 
situation at that time made it very unwise if not impos- 
sible to attempt then the repeal of annexation. British 
Commissioners and agents were sending in reports de- 
claring that there were good signs appearing of acquies- 
cence to the British rule on the part of some of the Dutch 
and that a strong but free government would insure a 
reign of peace and order that would soon win over to it 
the majority of the rest. Obligations too had been en- 
tered into with the natives that could not be ignored. 
Civil strife and anarchy seemed possible if the English 
immediately withdrew since the government by the Dutch 
country folk was detested by the European diggers and 
settlers in the newly-formed towns about the mining cen- 
ters. There was a plan on foot too for building up a 
confederation of states in South Africa, and advances 
had been made by official agents that called for further 
support. Gladstone hated to disappoint the Dutch, but 
was forced by events to continue the work of his prede- 
cessor in office. He told the Boers that the Queen's sov- 
ereignty over the Transvaal would be maintained but that 
the ministry desired them to have the very fullest liberty 
in managing their local affairs; and that he believed such 
liberty could be most easily and promptly conceded to 
the Transvaal as a state in a South African confedera- 
tion. 

But to be a member of such a federation was not the 
desire of the Dutch, and as to promises of a larger meas- 
ure of local self-government being bestowed, they were 



Gladstone's Second Ministry, 1880-1885 149 

tired of promises. After a great public assembly had 
proclaimed for a republic and a new government had 
been set up and flag raised (December, 1880) they be- 
gan military attacks on British outposts. Several small 
garrisons were overcome and at Majuba Hill, Febru- 
ary 27, 1 88 1, they came near annihilating a British force 
of 359 seasoned soldiers. The English lost in killed, 
wounded and captured 288 men, the commander Colley 
being numbered among the dead. The Boers did not 
lose a man. 

This disastrous defeat first fully aroused public opin- 
ion in England to the seriousness of the Transvaal re- 
sistance. Revenge became the popular cry, and rein- 
forcements were sent to the front. But strange to say, 
just as all England was listening to hear of some de- 
cisive military operation on a big scale, the surprising 
news came that the Prime Minister was planning to with- 
draw the garrisons and to concede to the wishes of the 
Boers. 

Gladstone's move was unpopular and required moral 
courage. To withdraw just after a defeat would be con- 
sidered a confession of weakness. But peace negotiations 
had been set on foot by him and a policy of conciliation 
and friendly settlement had been deliberately adopted 
and begun before Colley unfortunately occupied Majuba 
Hill. Because a military blunder quite disastrous to the 
English had been made, Gladstone could not see that he 
should reverse his peace policy already adopted and 
recommend revengeful warfare. To do that would be 
to incur blood-guiltiness. So in spite of fierce criticism 
from many in Parliament, in military circles and in the 
nation, he carried to a conclusion his settlement. The 
Pretoria Convention, concluded August, 1881, recognized 



the Boers' government as a quasi-independent state with 
specific reservations and under the suzerainty oi the 
Queen, Three years later the- Boers succeeded in hav- 
ing modified the Pretoria agreement. By the 1 ondoil 
Convention (1884) the old title South African Republic 
was restored and the word suzerainty was removed from 
the preamble of the agreement, Favoring the British) 
however, was inserted a provision which later at the 
opening of the great Boer War the Hutch heard a good 
deal about, vi/. "for white men to have full liberty, to 
reside in any part oi the republic, to trade in it, M\d to 
be liable to the same taxes only as those exacted from 
citizens of the republic." - : The settlement gave entire 

freedom to the Boers in internal government, but re- 
served for England control over their foreign affairs. 
As to where complete sovereignty was lodged the agree- 
ment was vague and just here lay tuture trouble. 

The Soudanese entanglement A\\d disaster grew out 
of England's interests in Egypt, Since D' Israeli in iS 5 
bought the bankrupt Khedive's shares in the Sue/ Canal, 
there had followed a steadily increasing control by Eng- 
land in Egyptian affairs, The chronic state oi indebted- 
ness oi the government had been accompanied by great 
and repeated loans, especially from England .\nd France, 
and from 1S70 to 1 S S ; these two countries exercised for 
the protection oi creditors and investors .1 Dual Control 
Over the financial administration oi Egypt, In the lat- 
ter part of iSS: native hostility to foreign interference 
culminated in a rebellion of subjects against the Khedive 
Tewfik and his foreign advisers, led by an ambitious 
colonel in the Kgyptian army. Arabi Pasha, whose popu- 
lar slogan was "Kgypt for the Fgyptiaus." The Pasha 
pressed the Khedive SO hard that foreign military forces 



Gladstone's Scr.ond Ministry, 1880-1885 151 

had to be brought in for bii defense. France balked at 
military intervention, but England went in; and thill sin- 
gle-handed d for herself a permanent su- 
premacy. Alexandria was bombarded by an English 
t. A British army was tent over under the command 
of Lord vVolseley gaining a victory over Arabi at Tcl-el- 

Kehir; a cavalry force took the capital Cairo ''Septem- 
ber [4, [882), and Arabi himself and main supporters 
were captured and banished. With the collapse of the 
rebellion the army of occupation did not withdraw, but 
remained for the purpose of assisting in "preserving the 
public tranquillity.' J his assistance soon came to mean 
actual direction of afiairs, for the governors of Egypt 
were compelled to adopt the policies advised by the Eng- 
lish resident counsellors. 

Egypt, though unable to maintain a stable govern- 
ment for herself was none the less vainly undertaking to 
subjugate and rule the wild Soudanese territory of the 
Upper Nile basin, employing arbitrary, selfish and op- 
pressive methods of misrule. The Gladstone ministry 
had eventually to interfere in that quarter; but it did so 
witli decided reluctance. Gladstone declared "I look 
upon the possession of the Soudan as the calamity of 
pt. It has been a drain on her treasury, it has been 
a drain on her men. It is estimated that 100,000 /Egyp- 
tians have laid down their lives in endeavoring to main- 
tain that barren conquest." 1 Not a jingoist, and ques- 
tioning the justice and wisdom of Egypt*! control in the 
Soudan, he was unwilling to give it military support. 
No imperialist, he did not desire to make war on the 
Soudanese to win their lands for England. The insur- 
rections there were in his mind justified by the atrocities 
and oppressions of the Egyptian pashas and were con- 



152 England's Progress 

sidered but the restless movements of "peoples rightly 
struggling to be free." He accepted British responsi- 
bility for good government in Egypt, but did not admit 
that this political relationship carried with it the duty 
of undertaking to rule the Soudan. Should he intervene, 
it would be to get Egypt to abandon the Soudan, to recall 
her governor, to withdraw her garrisons, and to leave 
the waste country in the hands of its native tribes. In 
1884 Gladstone undertook to carry out an "abandon- 
ment policy." The man sent to effect evacuation was 
General Charles Gordon. The man had had consider- 
able experience and success in governing orientals, had 
won world-fame as a leader of the Ever- Victorious Army 
in suppressing the formidable Tae-Ping rebellion against 
the Chinese government in 1864, had been Egypt's gov- 
ernor-general of the Soudan in 1877, na d there laifl a 
heavy hand on the slave dealers, and was justly recog- 
nized as a friend of the weak and wronged. 

Difficult and peculiar was his task. The Soudanese 
rebellion, started about 1881, was fired by both the politi- 
cal and religious spirit. In this year Mohammed Ahmed, 
a fanatical native of the Upper Nile country, had pro- 
claimed himself the heaven-sent Messiah, the prophet 
whom the Moslems teach would appear just before the 
Judgment Day. He had declared his mission to be to 
harry out of the land the people's oppressors, the wicked 
and the unbelieving, and win the world to his faith and 
God. Self-confident, able and eloquent the prophet had 
soon gathered under his leadership most of the wild 
and excitable tribes of the Soudan, and was directing with 
skill their united strength in throwing off the hated yoke 
of Egyptian rule. The fanatical "dervishes" had suc- 
ceeded in forcing into their fortresses the Egyptian troops 



Gladstone's Second Ministry, 1 880-1 885 153 

stationed in various parts of the country, and their steady 
advances had not been checked by the special military 
force despatched from Khartoum by the government of 
the Khedive. General Hicks, an Indian officer, sent out 
by Egypt in 1883 in command of a native army had been 
entrapped, and his whole host cut to pieces. 

Gordon seemed a good man to tackle the Mahdi. His 
personal magnetism, remarkable achievements, his influ- 
ence over others, his contempt for money, his abounding 
self-confidence and sublime faith had stirred the imagina- 
tion of the English people and made him seem to some 
the inspired heaven-directed leader; just the right com- 
mander to be pitted against the Soudanese prophet. He 
was given the widest discretionary powers as to the 
methods to employ, but was expected to undertake not 
a policy of conquest and rule, but of withdrawal: nor 
was he to count upon the sending of a military force 
from England to carry out his plan. But Gordon did 
not, probably could not, keep on a straight course. Hav- 
ing gotten himself appointed Governor-General of the 
Soudan by the Khedive at Cairo, he began soon to move 
in the direction of establishing settled order in the coun- 
try, hoping to reinstate the best representatives of the 
old rulers; but these could not be found. Arrived at 
Khartoum, though welcomed by its people as the great 
deliverer, he did not find, as some of the Arabs who 
had in former years served under him prophesied, "that 
the Mahdi's hordes will melt away like dew, and the 
Pretender will be left like a small man standing alone, 
until he is forced to flee back to his island of Abbas." 5 
On the contrary in answer to Gordon's messages of peace 
were sent insolent words, "calling upon Gordon to be- 
come a Mussulman, and to come and serve the Mahdi." 



154 England's Progress 

Already company after company sent against the prophet 
had been destroyed. As city and stronghold fell 
before the attack of "The Expected One," who claimed 
"he was immortal and would never die" and who was 
set upon killing every one not acknowledging his author- 
ity, the terrified Soudanese flocked in tribes to his stand- 
ard. Gordon became convinced that there was no hope 
for the Soudan so long as the Mahdi had sway; so 
changed his program and now proclaimed his plan to 
"smash up" this prophet; and to that end began calling 
for the despatch of a British army. Strange to relate, 
he asked also that there should be sent him from Cairo 
Zobeir Pasha. This fellow, though an able fighter and 
capable political chief, was a prisoner who had been in 
large part responsible for the abominable slave traffic of 
the decade past and had been deported for that reason 
to Cairo. His son had been executed by Gordon when 
formerly in authority in the Soudan. He was believed 
to have been in sympathy with the Mahdi at the first, 
and was regarded as the enemy of both Egypt and Eng- 
land. Gordon claimed to have a "mystical feeling that 
after all Zobeir would be his friend" and he believed 
that if this powerful, much-feared master were put in 
authority over a sort of buffer state between Egypt and 
Mahdi, and given England's moral support, he would 
"run straight" because at Cairo Zobeir had learned of 
England's power. Gordon had said that unless the man 
were sent "there was no chance of getting the garrisons 
away" ; but none the less, Cabinet, Parliament and peo- 
ple in England would not stand for Zobeir, the ex-slaver, 
and this request of Gordon's was refused. As to send- 
ing British troops, there was much hesitation and long 
debate before such responsibility would be assumed. 



Gladstone's Second Ministry, 1880-188 5 155 

Gordon and a garrison of 11,000 men were shut up in 
Khartoum by the Mahdists in February, 1884, and 
though the nation clamored vigorously all through the 
spring and summer for an expedition to be sent for the 
relief of Gordon, it was not until August that the min- 
istry, consenting to the plan, asked the House of Com- 
mons for a vote of credit. It was September before the 
final preparations for the expedition were made. An un- 
willing body of 10,000 men under the command of Lord 
Wolseley then started for Khartoum by the Nile route, 
but there were so many unknown obstacles to encounter 
it was January before any of the forces got within a 
hundred miles of Khartoum. On several occasions the 
British had to fight back the dervishes, but finally on 
January 28, 1885, a small force, numbering only 26 Brit- 
ish and 240 Soudanese who had boarded 2 small bullet- 
proof steamers sent down by Gordon to meet the desert 
column at Gubat, came in sight of the besieged capital. 
Over it waved, however, no longer the Egyptian flag. 
Two days before, the dervishes had assaulted and taken 
Khartoum. Gordon had been hacked to pieces, the starv- 
ing population massacred, and the city given over to pil- 
lage. And yet three whole days had been spent at 
Gubat in merely reconnoitering and making an exchange 
of troops! 

When the news of the awful calamity reached Eng- 
land consternation and anger seized the people. They 
were incensed beyond measure with the government, so 
halting and dilatory its action had been. The incident 
was referred to as "the betrayal of Gordon." The Queen 
openly expressed her displeasure and the ministry es- 
caped censure in the House of Commons by only 14 
votes. The government hardly survived the blow. 



156 England^ Progress 

For eleven years the Soudan was abandoned by Eng- 
land, all military forces having been withdrawn and the 
country left in control of the natives. But in 1896 its 
reconquest was undertaken. An Egyptian army carefully 
disciplined and prepared by English officers and under the. 
command of British generals headed by Sir Herbert Kit- 
chener, marched into the Middle Nile valley, drove the 
dervishes from the Dongola province, won victories at 
Ferker, Abu-Hamed, Atbara and Omdurman, in the 
latter of which battles 50,000 of the enemy were engaged, 
11,000 of them killed and 16,000 wounded; reoccupied 
Khartoum, and having utterly annihilated the native Kha- 
lifa's power, raised over the Soudan the standard of both 
Egypt and England. Thus the bounds of British con- 
trol were extended in Africa and the murder of Gordon 
had been avenged. 

After the Soudanese embroilment Gladstone was al- 
most brought into war with Russia because of the unwar- 
ranted advance of that country on Afghan territory, a 
buffer state between Russia and India. A Russian army 
had advancd into Afghan, whipped the Ameer's forces 
and annexed the valley of Penjdeh. To oppose the 
further advance Gladstone had no difficulty in getting 
from Parliament a vote of credit of 4,000,000 pounds 
for the army and 2,500,000 pounds for the navy; and 
later for frontier defense, 5,000,000 pounds. The Indian 
government began too a mobilization of troops and 
showed readiness to send to the front if needed 50,000 
men. Conflict was avoided however by conciliatory tac- 
tics,^ — by discussing the possibility of arbitrating the mat- 
ter, and by instituting a provisional arrangement for neu- 
tralizing the territory until a boundary commission could 
be appointed and could determine by investigation the 



Gladstone's Second Ministry, 1880-188 5 157 

rights of ownership. The frontier boundary line be- 
tween the Oxus and the Hari-Reed was marked out in 
1887. 

To allay trouble in Ireland Gladstone employed, but 
without much success, economic and disciplinary meas- 
ures. In 1880 he passed a bill making a "distinction be- 
tween those who would not pay rent and those who could 
not on account of bad harvests," and that allowed no 
eviction of tenants unless the landlord paid "compensa- 
tion for disturbance." In 1881 he passed a land bill, 
that established a land court through which a fair or 
"judicial rent" might be fixed in case of dispute, and that 
acted in general favorably to the tenant, reducing some 
excessive rents as much as a third or a half. These laws 
were denounced by prominent Liberals as well as by 
Conservatives as "demoralizing and dishonest, as a first 
step to social war." They caused some resignations from 
the ministry. Nor did the laws please the Irish people 
who hoped at some time to get rid of absentee land- 
lords altogether, and to gain nationality for their coun- 
try. Charles Stewart Parnell, the shrewd, cynical, deter- 
mined leader of the Home Rulers, declared the land acts 
shameful and urged the farmers not to make use of the 
land courts until certain test cases had been made. As 
head of a national land league, termed by Mr. Forster, 
the Secretary for Ireland, an "illegal and criminal organi- 
zation," Parnell with his followers certainly winked at, if 
they did not encourage, all manner of agrarian crimes. 
Those who unjustly evicted tenants, those who dared to 
take their vacated tenancies, and those who refused to 
follow the league's advice or orders as to settlement 
of annual rents and rents in arrears, were apt to suffer 
punishment. Threats to kill sent through the post, the 



158 England's Progress 

throwing of bombs and explosives, killing of live-stock, 
arson, shooting into houses, boycotting, murders, formed 
a veritable reign of terror. Agrarian crimes had arisen 
from 863 in 1879 t0 2 5^9 * n 1880, and evictions rose 
from 6239 in 1879 to 10,457 m 1880. In the fourth 
quarter of 1881 there were 732 outrages of which 42 
were either murders or attempts at murder. And this 
too notwithstanding the fact that a Protection of Property 
Bill and an Arms Bill, giving special powers to the lord- 
Keutenant for deterring and punishing criminals had 
been passed. Exercising this extraordinary power, Fors- 
ter had Parnell and a half dozen of his chief supporters 
arrested and imprisoned in Kilmainham jail as men 
"guilty of treasonable practices" "not ashamed to preach 
the gospel of public plunder." But this move did not 
destroy Parnell's influence. On the contrary, the Irish 
people, regarding him as illegally incarcerated, without 
just cause or regular trial, were ready to follow the 
league's "No Rent Manifesto" which the imprisoned 
Parnell inspired and endorsed, advising tenants to pay 
not a penny of rent until the government freed and 
treated with fairness their leaders. Outrageous agra- 
rian crimes multiplied again all over the South and West 
of Ireland. 

Gladstone hated to employ coercive measures, and 
having learned that Forster had been told by an emissary 
of Parnell's who had visited him in jail, that in case of 
Parnell's release, the Irish leader would do all in his 
power to stop boycotting, intimidation and outrages of 
every sort, the Prime Minister decided to make a new 
departure and try the effect of kinder methods, freeing 
Parnell, his confederates, and "all suspects not associated 
with the commission of crime." Forster, Secretary for 



Gladstone's Second Ministry, 1880-188 5 159 

Ireland, disapproved of this bargaining with criminals, 
and resigned office. In his place Gladstone put Lord 
Frederick Cavendish, a devoted friend and adherent who 
was the husband of a niece of Mrs. Gladstone and who 
had worked out a financial plan for a new land purchase 
scheme for Ireland. But Cavendish had been in Ireland 
only a few days when he and his under-secretary, Mr. 
Burke, were foully murdered by assassins in Phoenix 
Park, Dublin, in broad daylight. The horrible crime 
was the act of a body of conspirators called the Invin- 
cibles. Gladstone was constrained against his preference 
to abandon his policy of conciliation and to employ dras- 
tic coercive measures. A special tribunal of three judges 
was created for trying cases of treason, murder and seri- 
ous crime, which sat without juries; the right of public as- 
sembly was restricted, certain newspapers were sup- 
pressed, extra police furnished, arbitrary arrests allowed, 
and the police given the right to search houses day or 
night for the discovery of apparatus of crime. A vig- 
orous enforcement of this Crimes Act by Mr. Trevelyan, 
the new Secretary for Ireland, and by Lord Spencer, the 
new Viceroy, brought about for a short time a more quiet 
state of affairs. They unearthed several dastardly at- 
tempts to use explosives to frighten the government, and 
arrested and hanged some of the Dublin murderers and 
ring-leaders in crime. But while sedition and crime were 
suppressed for a while, it became evident that no enforce- 
ment act would solve the Irish problem. The Irish 
would not endure the thought of having over themselves 
a special system of criminal laws and soon serious dis- 
orders were again rife. 

The Irish Nationalists were bitterly angered at the 
ministry's coercive policy. Led by Parnell this parlia- 



160 England's Progress 

mentary group, numbering thirty-nine, leagued with the 
Conservatives and representatives of the brewers and 
saloon-keepers and defeated the administration on the 
liquor tax June 8, 1885. Gladstone forthwith resigned 
office to Lord Salisbury, the Conservative leader. 

REFERENCES 

1. Low and Sanders: Political History of England, Vol. 12, 

P- 323. 

2. Morley: Life of Gladstone, Vol. 2, p. 266. 

3. Morley: Life of Gladstone, Vol. 2, p. 285. 

4. Morley: Life of Gladstone, Vol. 2, p. 385. 

5. Lang: Life of Gordon, p. 106. 



CHAPTER XII 

SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY, 1885-1886, AND 

GLADSTONE'S THIRD MINISTRY, 

FEBRUARY-JULY, 1886 

In Salisbury's brief ministry, June 24, 1885, to Feb- 
ruary, 1886, the Irish and Conservative parties drew to- 
gether temporarily. Lord Carnarvon, the newly ap- 
pointed Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, expressed himself as 
not unfavorable to the Irish having a greater local au- 
tonomy. He expressed the intention of dropping the 
hated Crimes Act of his predecessor in office, and ex- 
pected "Englishmen, Scotsmen and Irishmen to live to- 
gether harmoniously in the United Kingdom as they did 
in the British colonies." Salisbury was thought to have 
had the Home Rule question in mind when making the 
following statement in a public address: "In a large cen- 
tral authority the wisdom of several parts of the coun- 
try will correct the folly and mistake of one. In a local 
authority that correction is to a much greater extent want- 
ing, and it would be impossible to leave that out of sight 
in any extension of local authority in Ireland." l 

In the general election held in November when the new 
franchise and redistribution of seats bill of 1884 first 
became operative the Parnellites heartily supported the 
Conservatives. No part of Ireland returned a single 
Liberal to Parliament. The cities and towns of England 
too mainly went Conservative. Gladstone's blunders in 
Egypt and the Soudan, fears as to his views on dises- 

161 



1 62 England's Progress 

tablishment of the English Church, and his policy of 
taxing more heavily the brewers told heavily against the 
Liberal candidates. But the agricultural laborers 
grateful for the new enfranchisement law turned out in 
full force and sent up enough Liberals to give Glad- 
stone's party a total majority in Parliament of 85 over 
the Conservatives, Parnell brought with him this time 
85 followers, and with their votes he was able exactly 
to offset or cancel the Liberal majority. The exact re- 
turns of the election were 335 Liberals, 249 Conserva- 
tives, and 86 Irish Nationalists. Thus the balance of 
power lay in the hands of the Home Rulers. 

But doomed to speedy disappointment were the ex- 
pectations of the Irish group. No sooner had the new 
Parliament met (January 12, 1886) than the an- 
nouncement was made of the resignation of the amiable 
Lord Carnarvon. In the Queen's speech occurred the 
statement: "I have seen with deep sorrow the renewal 
since I last addressed you of the attempts to excite the 
people of Ireland to hostility against the legislative union 
between that country and Great Britain. I am reso- 
lutely opposed to any disturbance of that fundamental 
law." And the Chief Secretary to Ireland announced 
after a two days' visit to Dublin that a new Coercion Bill 
was to be at once introduced in Parliament, "dealing with 
the national league, intimidation, and the protection of 
life, property and public order." The friendly expres- 
sions of opinion concerning a freer Ireland made by a 
few Conservative leaders before and during a general 
election did not square well with the governmental policy 
of the Conservative ministry now in office. Disappointed 
and resentful Parnell turned again. He knew that Glad- 
stone had lost faith in all efforts to quiet Ireland by coer- 



Salisbury's First and Gladstone's Third Ministry 163 

cive methods, that he regarded the Irish question as para- 
mount to all other questions, that he had vainly sought 
to get the Conservatives to co-operate with the Liberals 
in finding a solution of the Irish problem, and that he 
personally favored some form of home rule. The Irish 
leader reached the conclusion that he could get more for 
Ireland from the Liberals than from the Conservatives, 
and in consequence he now mustered his forces to Glad- 
stone's side and had the pleasure of seeing the Salisbury 
ministry defeated. On the 27th of January the vote of 
censure in the form of an amendment to the Queen's ad- 
dress expressing "regret" at the omission of a minor allot- 
ment measure in the interest of the agricultural classes 
was passed and the Salisbury ministry was retired, plac- 
ing Gladstone in power for the third time. 

The veteran statesman, now 76 years of age, decided 
to undertake the laborious, heroic task of forming for 
Ireland a full-ordered system of self-government. This 
too notwithstanding the fact that in the general election 
just had Home Rule had not been the leading issue. He 
knew too he would encounter the bitterest opposition of 
influential classes in England and in the Protestant prov- 
ince of Ulster. Against him were the Conservative 
party, the Peers, the Queen, and several of the foremost 
men of his own party. Among his former ministerial 
colleagues and men of weight who would not follow him 
were Lord Hartington, the leader of the moderate Lib- 
erals; John Bright, a man of influence with the Non-Con- 
formists; Trevelyan, former Chief Secretary for Ireland, 
and Chamberlain, head of the radical group. Gladstone 
claimed to offer a "plan of duly guarded home rule" that 
maintained in full the "unity of the empire, the authority 
of the crown, and the supremacy of the imperial parlia- 



164 England's Progress 

ment." His famous Home Rule Bill (1886) provided 
for an Irish Executive who had control of the police, 
and for a body of Irish representatives chosen by Irish 
constituencies. Ireland was no longer to have mem- 
bers in the English Parliament. Irish judges were to be 
under the control of the Irish Legislature ; and the Irish 
Legislature, though given the right to levy taxes, was 
denied the power to place duties on British or foreign 
goods, to establish or endow any religious institution, and 
to deal with matters affecting the crown, army, navy, 
trade negotiations and coinage. In return for benefits 
received from the English connection, such as defense, 
Ireland was to pay into the British treasury for imperial 
expenses, a sum equal to one-twelfth of the British rev- 
enue. Along with his Home Rule Bill Gladstone intro- 
duced also a Land Purchase Bill. "Every Irish land- 
lord was to have the option of selling his estate to the 
tenants, who would become the proprietors at once, 
though liable to a payment of interest at four per cent 
for forty-nine years. The price would be twenty years' 
purchase, the security would be the revenue of Ireland. 
If every landlord desired at once to sell the whole of 
his property, British credit might be pledged to the 
amount of a hundred and fifty millions sterling." 2 

The effort to pass these bills engendered in Parlia- 
ment, in the press, in political clubs, in family and in so- 
cial gatherings, the bitterest discussions. The Prime 
Minister was termed a "Judas Iscariot." The best men 
of the nation who dared to espouse Home Rule had flung 
at them such epithets as "traitor," "sycophant,' "cow- 
ard." The union of Ireland and England was declared to 
be "sacred to the memory of Pitt." To yield to the Par- 
nellites was to make terms with Fenian conspirators, 



Salisbury's First and Gladstone's Third Ministry 165 

criminals and assassins. The land purchase act was ob- 
jected to as "class legislation." Home Rule would mean 
Rome Rule, an idea fancied by neither the English Angli- 
cans nor the Presbyterians of Scotland. It meant "sepa- 
ration," a dissolution of Empire. Against it were not a 
few illustrious men such as Huxley, Tyndall, Tennyson, 
Browning, Lecky, Seeley, and Froude. Lord Salisbury, 
the Conservative chief, expressed himself as satisfied that 
Ireland needed only "resolute government." 

But Gladstone was tired of special Crime Acts and 
Arms Acts for Ireland, not believing that the Irish were 
unfit for self-government having taken a "double dose 
of original sin." He recognized that aristocratic power 
and influence were against him, but he hoped to win a 
victory through the people's support. "On the side of 
our opponents are found," he said, "as I sorrowfully ad- 
mit in profuse abundance, station, title, wealth, social in- 
fluence, the professions, or the large majority of them — in 
a word, the spirit and power of class. But this formid- 
able array is the same that has fought in every one of 
the great political battles of the last sixty years and has 
been defeated. We have had great controversies before 
on free trade, free navigation, public education, religious 
equality, extension of the suffrage. On these and many 
other great issues the classes have fought uniformly on 
the wrong side, and have uniformly been beaten by a 
power more difficult to marshal, but resistless when mar- 
shalled — by the upright sense of the nation." 

But as it turned out, Gladstone was unable to win his 
own party, much less the nation to his side. The bill was 
rejected in the Commons (June 8, 1886), the vote being 
343 against 313. Ninety-three Liberals voted with the 
majority. Parliament having been dissolved, and appeal 



1 66 England's Progress 

made to the country, a still greater defeat was sustained. 
The result of the polls (July) was 315 Conservatives, 
78 Liberal Unionists, 191 Liberals and 86 Irish Na- 
tionalists. The Liberal party had been disrupted. The 
78 Liberal Unionists decided to co-operate with the Con- 
servatives and support a Conservative ministry before 
they would yield to Gladstone's guidance in the matter 
of Home Rule. Since the Unionists could show a hostile 
majority of over 100, there was no course open to Glad- 
stone but to resign. The Queen sent for Lord Salisbury, 
who began his second administration, which lasted for six 
years (August 3, 1886-August 18, 1892). Creditable to 
Salisbury's first brief administration of six months was 
the passage of several worthy measures, viz. an eight- 
penny income tax, an Australian Federation measure, a 
bill providing a Secretaryship for Scotland, a law for the 
better protection of young girls, an act empowering the 
local government councils to destroy houses unfit for 
habitation, a measure providing for better housing of 
working people, and a Land Act, modelled on Gladstone's 
Land Act of 188 1, by which it was provided that tenants 
buying out their landlords might have advanced them 
as a loan by the government the whole amount of the pur- 
chase money, instead of only three-fourths of it as pro- 
vided in the act of 1881. 

REFERENCES 

1. Paul: Modern History of England, Vol. 2, p. 15. 

2. Paul : Modern History of England, Vol. 5, p. 46. 



CHAPTER XIII 

SALISBURY'S SECOND MINISTRY, 1 886-1 892, 
GLADSTONE'S FOURTH MINISTRY, 

1892-1894 

The government of the Unionists did not announce or 
undertake any special legislative program. The Cabinet 
was formed at first of Conservatives only, though Salis- 
bury had invited some of the Liberal Unionist leaders 
to enter it, even going so far in his magnanimity as to 
promise Lord Hartington, possibly the most influential 
Liberal Unionist, the support of the Conservative party 
if he would undertake to form a ministry and head the 
government. But Hartington saw that the chief of a 
party group as small as his own could not expect to be 
prime minister, and as to his party uniting with the Con- 
servatives, he knew that that combination was mainly 
on the one ground of a common hostility to Home Rule. 
On other questions the Hartington group being Liberals 
still preferred to stand apart and use their influence to 
"prevent the Conservative government from a retro- 
grade policy." They sat, therefore, as ordinary members 
of the opposition, though they supported with their votes 
the Conservative government on most of its proposals, 
some of which concerning domestic reforms were cer- 
tainly not illiberal, and others of which concerning colo- 
nial and foreign affairs involved no question of party. 

Salisbury, who was Foreign Secretary as well as Prime 

Minister, was "Foreign Secretary first and Prime Minis- 

167 



1 68 England's Progress 

ter afterwards." His excellent handling of external 
affairs won for him high recognition as a "skilful and 
peace-loving diplomatist." Among the important 
achievements of his administration may be mentioned the 
making of an international agreement with France that 
secured the neutralization of the Suez Canal, and threw 
open this highway of commerce to the ships of all na- 
tions, even to their vessels of war, though forbidding 
hostile manoeuvers in the canal or on its banks; the mak- 
ing of a treaty with Russia, concerning the Afghan bound- 
ary, that maintained still Afghanistan as a buffer state 
beyond "the legitimate sphere of Russian influence" and 
strengthened the Ameer's throne, but yet by yielding to 
Russia certain minor territorial concessions in the Kush 
and Kasan valleys put an end to a serious controversy 
which in 1885 came near involving England and Russia 
in war; the favoring of the formation (1887) of the 
Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary and 
Italy, which (in Salisbury's opinion) would have the sev- 
eral effects of hindering France in efforts to win a naval 
supremacy in the Mediterranean, of holding Russia back 
in its land aggressive policy and of insuring for some 
years at least the peace of Europe ; the relief of Suakin, a 
town on the Red Sea maintained as a check upon the 
slave trade, which the Dervishes threatened to attack but 
from which they were driven by a combined British and 
native force under the lead of British officers, an affair 
that made clear to all Europe that the safety and order 
of Europe were dependent directly on the British occupa- 
tion; and the gaining of British territory in Africa, as 
well as the forming of agreements between England and 
the nations Portugal, France and Germany, marking out 
their respective spheres of control and influence in sec- 



Salisbury's Second and Gladstone's Fourth Ministry 169 

tions of the dark continent. Nyassaland and Uganda 
came into the control of the English who had but recently 
secured too Santa Lucia Bay on the east coast; and the 
districts of the Oil Rivers at the mouths of the Niger — 
Zanzibar, Matabeleland, Mashonaland, Manicaland, and 
Zululand — also became British through annexation or 
protectorates. Portugal secured a district of territory 
north of the Zambesi; France got Madagascar, the 
Congo territory on the west coast and the Sahara from 
Algeria to Timbuctoo; and to Germany was given by 
England in exchange for her claim to the Hinterland of 
German East Africa, the much coveted islet of Heligo- 
land in Europe that lies at the mouth of the Elbe and 
that Germany needed for a naval coaling-station. In 
October, 1889, was granted the charter of the South 
African Company, a corporation "half commercial, half 
imperial," akin to the old East Indian Company, and like 
it in eventually bringing under English dominion the 
better part of an immense continent. 

During Salisbury's ministry there assembled at the 
Foreign Office, April 4, 1887, the First Colonial Confer- 
ence, a body of statesmen representing a population of 
nine millions and an area of seven million square miles 
"united by the golden link of the Crown." * Plans of 
union for imperial defense, unions for war, rather than 
schemes of constitution-making and political federation 
were the practical subjects the Prime Minister en- 
couraged the conference to discuss and work out. One 
tangible result of the Conference was an increase in the 
number of cruisers in Australian waters for the protection 
of the shipping interest, the expense of maintaining the 
cruisers being borne by the Australian Government. In 
1887 was formed the Council of Imperial Institute that 



170 England's Progress 

represented the British Isles, the Empire of India, and the 
Queen's Colonial possessions. In June of this year, too, 
was- celebrated at Westminster Abbey the completion by 
Victoria of a half century's rule. In the brilliant throng, 
numbering 10,000 assembled within the noble Abbey for 
solemn religious services were rajahs from India, prime 
ministers of self-governing dependencies, delegates from 
the most distant colonies, the ecclesiastical and political 
dignitaries of Great Britain, members of the royal fanv 
ily, and the Crown Prince of Germany, Her Majesty's 
son-in-law. The great concourse of people gathered in 
London from all parts of the United Kingdom to witness 
the grand pageant in Parliament Street, and the joyful 
celebrations held that day in all parts of the empire were 
testimonies of love for the Queen, of loyalty and pa- 
triotism of British subjects and of the moral unity of 
the Empire. One feature of the celebration in India 
was releasing 25,000 prisoners. The jubilee strength- 
ened the imperial idea too and directed attention to the 
necessity of strengthening the national defenses. The 
Two-Power naval standard was soon adopted and in 
1889 a scheme was agreed to for enlarging the navy by 
70 new ships that involved the expenditure of 21,500,- 
000 pounds beyond the ordinary estimates. 

The democratic and social measures of this ministry 
may be regarded as fruits grown on the Liberal Union- 
ists' grafting recently implanted on the old Conservative 
stock. Their most successful measure was the conversion 
of the National Debt in 1888 by Mr. Goschen, a Liberal 
Unionist. He had been made Chancellor of the Ex- 
chequer in January, 1887, when Lord Randolph Church- 
ill, a Conservative, had resigned the office on account 
of being unwilling to support certain extravagant mili- 



Salisbury's Second and Gladstone's Fourth Ministry 17 1 

tary expenditures the Cabinet favored. Mr. Goschen 
gave the holders of the government bonds, the option of 
being paid off in full at the nominal value of their bonds, 
or of retaining them and having the interest on them 
scaled from 3 to 2^ per cent and in 1903 to i l /2 per 
cent. Those holding the securities preferred to continue 
to keep them, and the transaction thus netted the Gov- 
ernment an annual saving in interest of 1,500,000 pounds. 
From the proceeds of increased liquor taxes Mr. Goschen 
enlarged the resources of the County Councils, and thus 
made possible some local governmental advances. 

In 1888 was passed the important County and District 
Councils Act which created throughout England and 
Wales elective boards to which were transferred many 
of the powers formerly exercised by the justices of the 
peace at quarter sessions. "The pith and marrow of it 
was the substitution for administrative purposes of 
County Councils elected by the rate payers instead of 
county magistrates nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. 
As a court of justice and of appeal, the magistrates would 
continue to sit in Quarter Sessions as before." 2 London 
was also made a "separate administrative county," and 
to the new council were given practically all the more im- 
portant powers and functions of local government, ex- 
cept cqntrol of the police, which order was left under the 
control of the Home Office, being regarded as a National 
and not a Municipal force. By the act the people of 
London were enabled for the first time to direct their 
own local government. There was a part of the metrop- 
olis, however, the old City of London, that remained dis- 
tinct from the new county corporation, and that was al- 
lowed to retain its ancient rights and privileges. In 1889 
Scotland had its local government reformed by the estab- 



172 England's Progress 

lishment of elective county boards and it also introduced 
through the local authorities free elementary education. 
In 1 89 1 Parliament passed the Free Education Act 
which applied to England and Wales, and made the edu- 
cation gratuitous in the public elementary schools. In 
1889 was passed a Prevention of Cruelty to Children 
Act, prohibiting the employment of children under 10 
years of age. A useful Factory and Workshop Bill was 
carried in 1891, the object of which was to safeguard 
against unsanitary arrangements, against fire and acci- 
dents, and against such forms of commercial oppression 
as sweating. A new Public Health Act for London pro- 
vided for cleaner pavements and a better water supply. 
The Small Holdings Act of 1892 was planned to furnish 
the thrifty working men with small allotments of land. 
The County Councils were to borrow funds and might 
assist the laborer to the extent of advancing three- 
fourths of the purchase money which was to be gradu- 
ally paid off through rentals and yearly instalments. 

For Ireland the Conservative Ministry's plan was 
"resolute government." The Crimes Act of the Chief 
Secretary, Mr. Balfour, passed in the Spring of 1887, 
was most stringent. While not suspending the Habeas 
Corpus Act or legalizing arbitrary imprisonment of sub- 
jects, it provided for bringing over to England for trial 
those committing serious crimes like murder. It gave 
the Lord Lieutenant power to declare illegal any sort of 
league or association he deemed dangerous, and it even 
allowed the trial of cases of conspiracy, by magisterial 
officers, many of whom were ignorant men, unversed in 
the law, instead of by juries as was required in England 
and Scotland. The severe measure was to be in force or 
left in abeyance at the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, 



Salisbury's Second and Gladstone's Fourth Ministry 173 

but unlike former coercive acts that were limited in time, 
the Balfour Act was to remain a permanent part of the 
Irish legal system. To impede the passage of the bill the 
Irish representatives used all manner of obstructive tac- 
tics, necessitating the amending of the rules of debate 
and procedure. In 1879 it was estimated that "Parnell 
had spoken five hundred times, and that two others 
had spoken over three hundred times each." 3 To 
facilitate the transaction of business the "cloture" 
had to be employed. The adoption of the new rules 
in the parliamentary session of 1887 consumed fifteen 
nights. 

Of course coercion brought on again crimes and out- 
rages. Lawlessness was at its height in the fall of 1887. 
When Parliament the previous year had rejected Par- 
nell's Tenant and Leaseholder Relief Bill, that proposed 
in the interest of the distressed renters that a Land Court 
should have power "to reduce any judicial rent fixed be- 
fore 1885, and that on payment of half the rent with 
arrears eviction should be suspended," there had been 
started a sort of no-rent league. It was agreed that all 
the tenants of any Irish estate who felt that their rents 
were excessive might meet and in common decide what 
rents they felt to be just; that they should offer these 
rents to their landlords, and that if the rents were not 
accepted in settlement, the money should be paid into a 
common treasury in the hands of trustees to be used to 
resist evictions. The government treated the association 
as an illegal conspiracy. Many league meetings were 
broken up, numerous agitators arrested, and leading po- 
litical offenders, though members of Parliament like Wil- 
liam O'Brien, seized and handled like ordinary criminals. 
Balfour eventually succeeded in bringing better order. 



174 England's Progress 

Remedial as well as repressive methods were employed. 
He reduced judicial rents fixed by earlier land courts, 
made land purchases easier and furnished material relief 
to large poverty stricken areas. In a visit to the poorest 
parts of the West of Ireland in the autumn of 1890, he 
saw for himself a state of destitution that he felt in 
duty bound to try to relieve. To furnish employment 
fourteen thousand pounds were spent in constructing 
railways,' in which work as many as 13,000 men 
were employed at one time, for whom, when without 
shelter, the Government furnished huts. To mitigate the 
suffering caused by a potato-crop failure he raised a con- 
siderable charity fund and secured also a grant from 
the British Exchequer. The Government advanced 
money also for assisting in getting a large quantity of 
seed-potatoes for the spring planting in the famine dis- 
trict. The Land Act of 1888 authorized the advancing 
by the government authorities of another 5,000,000 
pounds to tenant purchasers. Balfour's larger Land Pur- 
chase Bill of 1890 went much further. For the first 
time the state was allowed to advance the whole of the 
purchase price, the tenant to return the same by paying 
a four per cent annuity on his holding for forty-nine 
years and as much as 30,000,000 pounds was authorized 
to be spent by the Treasury in aiding buyers of land. 

In 1887 interest in the Irish question was considerably 
stimulated by the publication in the London Times of a 
series of articles entitled "Parnellism and Crime." The 
Times presented several letters that bore Parnell's signa- 
ture in which the Irish leader when in Kilmainham prison 
was inciting base fellows outside to commit crimes. In 
one of them appeared statements that might be construed 



Salisbury's Second and Gladstone's Fourth Ministry 175 

in a fashion that would indicate that Parnell had sanc- 
tioned or condoned, if he had not instigated, the assas- 
sinations of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke 
in Phoenix Park. Parnell categorically denied from his 
seat in Parliament the authenticity of the letters; and next 
year an investigating Government Commission of three 
judges discovered that they were forgeries. A needy 
adventurer, "Dick Pigott," had sold them at a handsome 
price to the manager of the Times. In course of the 
trial the wretch had confessed, recanted and then con- 
fessed a second time. Finally he fled from England to 
Spain, and finding when in Madrid that detectives were 
close on his heels he blew out his brains in his room at the 
hotel. Parnell instituted a suit against the Times for 
libel and forced the paper to pay him 5,000 pounds dam- 
ages. The expense of the whole inquiry amounting to 
250,000 pounds had to be borne by the Times also. The 
final report of the Government Commission of three 
judges, made in February, 1890, completely exonerated 
Parnell, and his colleagues. 

Noting the result of the investigation and trial on 
public opinion, Gladstone, whose mind was wholly set 
on Ireland, began to draw closer to Parnell. In mid- 
December of 1889 the Irish chief was a guest at Hawar- 
den, Gladstone's home, when the outlines of another 
1 lorne Rule bill were drawn up. A conclave of prominent 
liberals had been held, and their decision to retain, 
though with reduction in number, the Irish members at 
Westminster when granting Home Rule had made some 
of these men better pleased with the bill. Cecil 
Rhodes, the South African "Diamond King," had come 
to the support of the Irish cause too. Rhodes was inter- 



176 England's Progress 

ested in Imperial Federation. He believed that for Ire- 
land to have her own legislature for local affairs, as well 
as to have representation in the English Parliament, 
would further his plan of having a grand imperial As- 
sembly representing all of England's dominions. He 
offered 10,000 pounds to Parnell in 1888 for advancing 
the Nationalists' cause on condition that the Irish mem- 
bers should not be excluded from Westminster by the 
final Home Rule Act, as had been the case with the de- 
feated Home Rule Bill of 1886. In the parliamentary 
bye-elections some of the Liberal candidates had been 
boldly advancing the policy of conciliating Ireland as 
against the Unionist plan of coercion and had been win- 
ning the seats. That the Unionists were weakening and 
the opposition gaining strength these years is shown by 
the fact that there were seventy-seven constituencies 
which in 1886 were represented by forty-seven Union- 
ists and thirty Liberals, that in the fall of 1890 were rep- 
resented by thirty-six Unionists and forty-one Liberals. 
But just as the tide of public favor toward Home Rulq, 
began to flow strongly, and the Gladstonians and Parnel- 
lites were becoming intimately friendly, the whole politi- 
cal world was astounded and shocked by the rumor that 
Captain O'Shea was petitioning for a divorce on the 
ground that Parnell had for years been living with his 
wife. The news seemed unbelievable for O'Shea had 
been the emissary of Parnell when in jail, and had been 
instrumental in getting Parnell's release from Kilmain- 
ham prison under Gladstone's administration. But the 
charge was true. Parnell did not undertake to defend 
himself, and the Court (November 17, 1890) pro- 
nounced a condemnatory decree. Parnell later married 
Mrs. O'Shea. 



Salisbury's Second and Gladstone's Fourth Ministry 177 

The ugly incident was of great political significance. 
It virtually destroyed Parnell as the leader of the Irish 
party. He refused to resign the premiership of the Irish 
Nationalist group and for the remainder of his life, which 
lasted only about a year, he waged a bitter contest to 
maintain his place, the wrangle causing division in the 
Irish parliamentary group. But the strain and disgrace 
soon told on his strength, and in 1891 at the early age 
of 45, he died "killing himself by overwork." 

The incident gave a considerable set-back to the Home 
Rule Cause. Until Parnell was out of the way Ireland 
itself was divided. The Catholic Church could not en- 
courage its members to give loyal allegiance to the guilty 
chief, the destroyer of the peace of a home. Many of 
the English Liberals among the Non-Conformists and 
Churchmen withdrew at once from co-operation with the 
Parnellities. Gladstone declared that his own leader- 
ship of the Liberal party would be "almost a nullity" if 
Parnell continued at the head of the Irish Nationalists, 
and later he openly opposed him. Eventually only 26 
of the 70 Irish members of Parliament stuck to Parnell; 
44 left him, choosing Mr. Justin McCarthy as their 
chief. With this McCarthy group Gladstone continued 
to work. He had been laboring in the hope of win- 
ning in the approaching general election a big enough 
Liberal majority to settle the Irish question possibly in- 
dependently of the Irish group. But after this "heav- 
iest blow ever received" he saw this was impossible. The 
general election of July, 1892, held on the dissolution of 
parliament by Salisbury was a great disappointment 
to him. He received only a majority of 40, in which 
had to.be included all the Irish Home Rulers. The ver- 
dict of the polls was 269 Conservatives and 46 Liberal 



178 England's Progress 

Unionists against 274 Gladstonians and 8 1 Irish Nation- 
alists. The Liberal party had suffered in the campaign 
not only from the Irish split but also'Trom the "New- 
castle programme." This platform had been drawn up 
by the National Liberal Federation at Newcastle in 
October of 189 1. In the effort to reconcile various rival 
groups of Liberals and Radicals by giving something 
to each, and to make a platform broad enough for all 
to stand upon, a very comprehensive scheme had been 
evolved, including besides Home Rule, Disestablishment 
of the Church in Wales and Scotland, local option, 
abolition of plural voting, payment of salaries to mem- 
bers of parliament, employers' liability for accidents, 
and the establishment of councils for parishes. Each of 
these proposals had its army of opponents and their 
united strength had told mightily on election day. The 
Conservatives had received the support of the Anglican 
clergy, of the organized liquor trade, and of a great 
body of employers of labor. Gladstone entering now 
upon his fourth ministry found himself "in the hands of 
his allies from across St. George's channel." He had to 
make Home Rule the foremost question of his adminis- 
tration. But he wanted to. 

The Home Rule Bill of 1893 differed from the Home 
Rule Bill of 1886 mainly in two respects: (1) the Irish 
legislature was to consist of two houses instead of one, 
the upper house to be composed of 48 members chosen 
by persons owning considerable property, "with a ratable 
holding of 20 pounds or more," and the lower to be com- 
posed of 103 members representing the existing parlia- 
mentary electoral districts of Ireland; and (2) Ireland 
was to have representatives at Westminster, 80 of them, 
who were to vote on all imperial concerns but not on 



Salisbury's Second and Gladstone's Fourth Ministry 179 

matters that concerned solely England or Scotland, or 
on taxes not levied in Ireland, or on appropriations for 
other than imperial purposes. As in the bill of 1886 the, 
Irish parliament was to have nothing to do with the con- 
trol of the army, navy, customs, trade, and foreign 
affairs; but otherwise the country was to be given full 
authority, and to have complete control of all internal 
matters, such as police, laws, taxes, and education. 

The bill was detested by the Conservatives, and so 
fierce was the opposition and lengthy the debate, that it 
took six months to get it through the Commons. The 
measure passed on its third reading by a vote of 301 to 
267, but on being sent to the House of Lords it was at 
once rejected by the overwhelming majority of 419 to 
41 (September 8, 1893). 

Since the nation received the news with apathy and a 
general election had been held the previous year, Glad- 
stone did not deem it wise to dissolve parliament, and 
make an appeal to the country against the Lords; but 
decided to retain office and proceed at once to the con- 
sideration and passage of other Liberal measures, de- 
manded by his party. An Employers' Liability Bill, 
which made certain employers of labor responsible for 
injuries sustained by their servants, and a Parish Coun- 
cils Bill, which proposed to establish elective councils 
for parishes in England and Wales, thus extending the 
system of local government begun in 1888 to smaller 
areas than counties and giving agricultural laborers 
a share in the management of their affairs were taken up. 
The second became law but the other he abandoned when 
the Lords had succeeded in inserting a clause that 
allowed employers to "contract out" from the benefits of 
the act. In March, 1894, the aged Premier announced 



180 England's Progress 

that he must lay down the burden of office. He was now 
eighty-four years of age, eyesight and hearing were fail- 
ing, and the responsibility of government he wished to lay 
on younger shoulders. The approximate cause of his 
resignation was his strong objection to an increase of 
3,126,000 pounds in the naval estimates over the ex- 
penditure of the previous year. In his last parliamen- 
tary deliverance, a simple announcement that the minor 
changes made in the Parish Councils Bill by the Peers 
would be accepted, he pointed out the "moral of the politi- 
cal situation" declaring that the House of Lords was 
acting unwisely in blocking so frequently the passage of 
laws desired by the House of Commons, that^the grave 
differences raised between them could not continue, but 
must "go forward to an issue," in which the Government 
would take fully, frankly and finally the side oT the House 
of Commons." 5 His remarks attracted no special at- 
tention at the time, his audience not knowing that these 
were the last words which that legislative chamber would 
hear fall from his lips, "the last political will and testa- 
ment of the greatest man who had sat in the Commons 
since the younger, if not the elder, Pitt." On tendering 
his resignation to the Queen Her Majesty appointed 
Lord Rosebery Prime Minister, not even consulting Glad- 
stone, with whose advanced liberalism she had not been 
in full sympathy and whom she was perfectly willing to 
have retire. The "Grand Old Man," whom his rival 
Lord Salisbury spoke of as possessing "the most brilliant 
intellect ever devoted to the service of the State since 
Parliamentary Government began," lived only four years 
after his withdrawal from public life, dying May 19, 
1898. 



Salisbury's Second and Gladstone's Fourth Ministry 181 



REFERENCES 



i. Paul: History of Modern England, Vol. 5, p. 101. 

2. Paul: History of Modern England, Vol. 5, p. 138. 

3. Hazen: Europe Since 181 5, p. 498. 

4. Paul: History of Modern England, Vol. 5, p. 199. 

5. Paul: History of Modern England, Vol. 5, p. 256. 



CHAPTER XIV 

THE MINISTRIES OF ROSEBERY, 1894-1895, 
SALISBURY, 1895-1902, AND BALFOUR, 

1902-1905 

When Gladstone in 1894 tendered his resignation to 
Queen Victoria, partly on account of the infirmities of 
age, failure of eyesight and hearing, and partly on ac- 
count of his objection to larger naval expenditures, Lord 
Rosebery was invited by the Sovereign to head the gov- 
ernment. His ministry was brief (March, 1894- June, 
1895), and without large achievements. Though dis- 
tinguished as a writer and orator, and possessed of fine 
literary ability and artistic taste, the Premier lacked 
political experience. He had never been a member of 
the House of Commons, nor did he have well thought 
out, settled convictions as to governmental policy. He 
did not have the full support of his party. Heading a 
"divided and dispirited Government" he had responsi- 
bility without power. The best legislative work of his 
administration was the Budget of 1894. This instituted 
graduated duties on real and personal property passing 
at death. It imposed assessments varying from 1 to 8 
per cent according to the value of the estate, and 
brought into the Treasury the sum of 4,000,000 pounds. 
Efforts made to pass a bill for the Disestablishment of 
the Church in Wales and to carry an Evicted Tenants 
Bill for Ireland were unsuccessful. Defeated during the 

session of 1895 on a minor amendment to the army esti- 

182 



Ministries of Rosebery, Salisbury, and Balfour 183 

mates the disheartened Cabinet realized that it was mak- 
ing no genuine progress and resigned June 21, 1895. 

In the general election that followed the Conservatives 
and Liberal Unionists won a majority of 152 seats over 
the Gladstonian Liberals and Irish Nationalists. The 
verdict at the polls reflected the rift Gladstone had made 
in his party by his last Home Rule bill; and showed that 
the country was with the House of Lords on that pro- 
posal. Evidently their defeat of the measure was popu- 
lar. The Conservatives and Liberal Unionists were able 
to get together because the former were beginning now to 
show democratic tendencies and the latter imperialistic. 
The reins of state were again placed in the hands of 
Lord Salisbury, the Conservative leader. In forming 
his government he placed some of the most important 
offices in the hands of prominent Liberals. Hartington 
was made President of the Council; Lansdowne, Secre- 
tary for War; Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary; and 
Goschen, First Lord of the Admiralty. This was Salis- 
bury's third ministry. It extended from June, 1895, 
to July, 1902, and during it foreign affairs were to the 
fore. 

The ministry's record in domestic legislation was not 
extraordinary and may be quickly told. The Agricultural 
Rating Act of 1896, "a piece of class legislation," low- 
ered the assessment of land and gave 1,000,000 pounds 
in relief of rates, a relief amounting to about one shilling 
per acre. The Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897 
increased the workingman's opportunity of enforcing 
claims against his employer in case of injury or accident, 
but workmen were allowed to contract out of the provi- 
sions of the law and certain classes of labor such as 
domestics and farm hands were excluded from its bene- 



184 England's Progress 

fits. The Government of London Act of 1899 created 
sixteen virtually independent municipalities in the area 
of the London County Council's government but it left 
to the old City of London corporation its privileges. 
The Voluntary Schools Bill of 1897 increased the grant 
of money to schools not under public control. In 1901 
was established a Board of Education that took over the 
work of certain educational departments with the pur- 
pose of improving and making more uniform the ele- 
mentary educational system as well as of coordinating 
better the work of the primary and secondary schools. 1 
Important were two measures for Ireland: the one of 
1899 establishing a Department of Agriculture and Tech- 
nical Instruction, the other the Local Government Act 
of 1898 that established popularly elected County Coun- 
cils. Beneficial was the introduction in 1898 of a penny 
postage between the home land and most of the depend- 
encies of the Empire. 

Notable was the development in imperialism. Closer 
union between England and the Colonies was constantly 
and ably advocated by Mr. Chamberlain, the interesting 
Colonial Secretary. In 1897 was celebrated the "Diamond 
Jubilee" marking the sixtieth year of the rule of Queen 
Victoria at which were gathered the premiers of the self- 
governing dependencies, delegates from the royal colo- 
nies, and representatives from India. Mr. Chamberlain 
used the opportunity to assemble in conference foremost 
statesmen from various quarters of the Empire for con- 
sultation and discussion concerning the weighty matters 
of imperial defense, colonial union and commercial regu- 
lations. The necessity and mutual benefits of drawing 
closer the governmental ties that bound together the scat- 
tered parts of the Empire were recognized and empha- 



Ministries of Rosebery, Salisbury, and Balfour 185 

sized as well as the justice and wisdom of all parts of 
the imperial dominion sharing the burden of imperial 
defense. But no general agreement as to state policy 
on these questions was arrived at. One of Mr. Cham- 
berlain's plans for bringing about a closer federation of 
the self-governing colonies with England was to institute 
a system of preferential tariffs within the Empire. In 
the colonial conference were sounded the first notes of 
the heated tariff controversy that took definite shape five 
or six years later and that proved a chief cause of the 
fall of the Unionist government in 1905. Of imperial 
significance also was the passage by the British Parlia- 
ment in 1900 of the Australian Commonwealth Act. 
The new federal state, with an appointed Governor-Gen- 
eral to represent the Sovereign, a Senate of elected dele- 
gates from the incorporated states and a House of Rep- 
resentatives elected by the people came into being Jan- 
uary 1, 1901. 

The foreign affairs, which occupied the attention of 
the government, concerned Armenia, Crete, Venezuela, 
China, Afghanistan, Egypt and the Transvaal. In the 
years 1894, 1895 and 1896 occurred horrible massacres 
of Armenian Christians by the Turks. The Sultan coun- 
tenanced if he did not instigate the murderous work on 
the ground that these Christians were anarchists and 
revolutionists trying to undermine his throne. As many 
as 100,000 of them were killed in these years. When 
a group of Armenians in retaliation had succeeded in 
August, 1896, in dynamiting some buildings in Con- 
stantinople and seizing the Ottoman Bank there were 
murdered 5,000 of them in the streets of that one city. 
Loud and vehement were the denunciations of the bar- 
barities of the Turk these years all over Europe and 



1 86 England's Progress 

especially in England where Gladstone tried in vain to 
rouse his country to take independent action in behalf 
of Armenia. Formal protests were made by the consuls 
of France, England and Russia, and their joint pressure 
on the Sultan led to a promise of instituting reforms. 
But this method of correcting the abuses was ineffectual. 
Russia stood out firmly against the use of any coercive 
measure against the Sultan, fearing that such interfer- 
ence by any of the great Powers might issue in erecting 
u a new Bulgaria in Armenia." The so-called Concert 
of Powers revived by Salisbury for the purpose of super- 
vising the promised reforms in the disturbed area was 
unsuccessful. It lacked force. More than external 
moral pressure was needed to change the political meth- 
ods of the Turkish Government. 

In the rising of the Christians of Crete against the 
Sultan's misrule in 1896 and in the Graeco-Turkish War 
of 1897 which grew out of the Greeks' support of the 
Cretans in their effort to win independence for their 
island, a different line was taken by Salisbury and a bet- 
ter result ensued. The demand of the Powers that the 
Cretan Christians should have a share in their gov- 
ernment was followed by the act of surrounding the 
island promptly with their fleets. 2 The bombardment 
of Candia by the British and the threat of single-handed 
intervention led to the evacuation of Crete by the Turks. 
Prince George of Greece was made governor of the 
island December 21, 1898. The Greeks benefited also 
from Salisbury's interference. In 1897 he secured for 
them when defeated in their fight better terms than 
the Turks were at first inclined to yield. 

The Venezuelan controversy arose out of the fact that 
the Republic of Venezuela laid claim to all the land 



Ministries of Rosebery, Salisbury, and Balfour 187 

which had been given to Spain by the bull of Pope Alex- 
ander VI granted in 1492 when dividing the newly 
discovered world between Portugal and Spain though 
some of this land had been gained in 18 14 by Great 
Britain from Holland and was now a part of British 
Guiana. The President of the United States, Grover 
Cleveland, seemed inclined to support Venezuela in the 
boundary dispute as against England: and taking the 
stand that encroachments here on the part of Great 
Britain would be contravening the Monroe Doctrine, he 
declared his readiness to oppose such advance with 
armed force. He demanded of England that the mat- 
ter should be submitted to a board of arbitration and 
that England should promise beforehand that she would 
abide by whatever decision the board reached. The Brit- 
ish nation did not at all relish Cleveland's peremptori- 
ness and there was some heated feeling and passionate 
war-like talk. But the self-control, cool-headedness, and 
good judgment of Salisbury warded off trouble and 
brought the matter after a few months to a happy issue. 
Ignoring the threat, assured of the justice of his course 
and seeing that the House of Commons desired the dis- 
pute arbitrated, he finally accepted the American pro- 
posal of adjudication which he at first had rejected. 
Two British and two United States judges and a Rus- 
sian jurist formed the arbitration tribunal which in Oc- 
tober, 1899, rendered a verdict quite favorable to Eng- 
land giving her pretty nearly everything she claimed. 

Since the Venezuelan controversy nothing has hap- 
pened to interrupt the feeling of amity and concord ex- 
isting between the United States and Great Britain. A 
sign of this goodwill was the new agreement made con- 
cerning the building of an isthmian canal connecting the 



1 88 England's Progress 

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In 1901 the Clayton-Bul- 
wer treat)- between England and the United States 
formed in 1S50 was annulled and substituted by the Hay- 
Pauncefote treaty. The former agreement was to the 
effect that the "two powers should jointly guarantee the 
neutrality of any canal they constructed across the isth- 
mus and that other nations should have a right to sub- 
scribe to the treaty if they chose.'' s The latter pro- 
vided for the United States alone to build it and to guar- 
antee its neutrality. No other nation became a party 
to the pledge and nothing was said against fortifica- 
tions. It is pleasing to note that amicable settlement 
was had of several differences that arose during the 
century between these two countries. One dispute con- 
cerning the ownership of the island of San Juan was 
allowed by common consent of both governments to be 
settled by the German Emperor who in 1872 gave the 
island to the United States. The Alaska boundary con- 
troversy, which arose out of the indefinite terms in the 
purchase treaty made by the United States with Alaska 
in 1S67, was settled satisfactorily by a board of six 
arbiters. The century long wrangle concerning Ameri- 
can and Canadian fishery rights was adjusted finally by 
the decision of the Hague Tribunal in 19 10. 

In 1898 Salisbury had to give special attention to the 
Far Eastern situation. The conditions in China made 
it appear that the old empire might possibly become 
dismembered and that much of its territory might be 
divided out among European powers. After the small 
nation, Japan, had so easily defeated the Chinese in 
the War of 1894, several governments of Europe on 
one pretext or another sought and got foothold on the 
Chinese seacoast and marked out for themselves re- 



Ministries of Rosebery, Salisbury, and Balfour 189 

spectivc spheres of influence and trade. In November, 
1897, Germany leized die port of Kiau-Chau on the Shan- 
tung promontory assigning as her reason for this action 
the desire to obtain satisfaction for the murder of cer- 
tain German missionaries in the adjacent territory. 'I he 
seizure was legalized a few months later through a 
treaty, by which this port and the adjacent territory was 
leasee] to Germany for a term of ninety-nine years with 
the right to construct railways, establish fortifications, 
station troops, and undertake various enterprises 
throughout the whole province of Shantung. Russia im- 
mediately followed Germany's move. first obtaining 
permission in December, 1897, to winter her squadrons 
at Port Arthur in the Liaotung peninsula, she shortly 
effected an agreement with China by which Port Arthur, 
Talienwan and the adjacent territory were leased for 
a term of twenty-five years with the understanding that 
the lease could be subsequently extended longer by mu- 
tual consent. France a year or two later got a port 
on the Kuang-Chau Bay, and Japan obtained the pledge 
from China that none of the territory of the province 
of Fukien opposite the Island of Formosa should be 
alienated to any power other than Japan. 

Salisbury at the first attempted to prevent these terri- 
torial aggressions on China and sought only to main- 
tain commercial privileges for England but failing to 
restrain other governments he changed his policy. In 
1898 in the interest of maintaining the balance of power 
in China he occupied the port of Wei-hai-Wei which 
faces Port Arthur on the other side of the Gulf of Pechili 
and in addition secured from China the pledge that no 
portion of the Yang-Tse basin should be mortgaged, 
leased or ceded to another power. In order to 



190 England's Progress 

strengthen and better to defend her settlement at Hong- 
kong England soon secured the lease also of a piece 
of the adjoining mainland. These encroachments of 
European nations on Chinese territory, the hatred of 
foreign devils and strong opposition to innovations and 
reforms undertaken by the young Emperor and liberal 
leaders representing the so-called Western Culture 
brought about a revolution in China. The aged and 
conservative Empress Dowager succeeded in seizing 
again supreme authority: and at the same time, possibly 
with the government's connivance, arose the "Boxers," 
a band of conspirators who sought to run out of the 
country or murder foreigners and native Christians. On 
June 20, 1900, the British Legation at Pekin filled with 
European refugees, among them the foreign mission- 
aries, was besieged by the Boxers. A military force of 
20,000 under command of Count von Waldersee com- 
posed of troops from the United States, Japan, Russia, 
France and Germany was sent to raise the siege which 
was accomplished in August, 1900. The head of the 
anti-foreign movement Prince Tuan, who had been sup- 
ported by some of the imperial troops, was banished; 
the leading Boxers were punished; measures for the 
future security of foreigners were obtained; and in final 
settlement a war indemnity of about $330,000,000 was 
forced on the country. The "open door" policy in trade 
was also directly agreed to by the Powers, an achieve- 
ment in the main of Mr. John Hay, the United States 
Secretary of State. This left England, which had se- 
cured about 80 per cent of China's foreign trade, in as 
strong a commercial position as ever; but the fact that 
Germany and Russia, England's rivals, had gotten terri- 
torial footholds in China was not pleasing to the English 



Ministries of Rosebery, Salisbury } and Balfour 191 

public and for this reason Salisbury's Chinese policy 
was not considered by many altogether successful. 

On the North-West frontier of India occurred in 
1895 and 1897 formidable uprisings of some of the 
wild border tribes adjoining the independent buffer state 
of Afghanistan. The relief of Chitral, a British out- 
post that had suffered attack, was gained only after a 
prolonged siege of a month and a half, and the sup- 
pression of the insurrection in the Tirah valley was ac- 
complished (1898) only after a long difficult and costly 
campaign necessitating the sending of a military expe- 
ditionary force of 60,000 men. 

An important feat of Salisbury's ministry was the final 
conquest of the Soudan. From 1885 to 1896 the Brit- 
ish Government maintained a defensive attitude, with- 
drawing its troops from Soudanese territory and holding 
only frontier outposts at Suakin and Wady Haifa. But 
having trained its Egyptian army by English officers into 
a more efficient force, and having built a military rail- 
way from Wady Haifa to Abu Hamed the government 
undertook again to subdue the country sending in a con- 
siderable British Army. The conquest of the Soudan 
was felt to be necessary to secure Egypt from attacks 
from that quarter, to restore national honor impaired 
by former defeat and to "avenge Gordon." In Septem- 
ber, 1896, the Anglo-Egyptian army occupied Dongola, 
and in September, 1897, Berber and in September, 1898, 
Khartoum. In 1898 the Dervishes were defeated at At- 
bara, and the Khalifa's army was routed at Omdurman by 
Kitchener with a loss of 11,000 of its men. In Novem- 
ber, 1899, the Khalifa himself was slain. These rapid 
and steady successes "restored British self-respect and 
gave Egypt the security necessary for internal develop- 



192 England's Progress 

merit." 4 In January, 1899, the Soudan was declared to 
be under the joint sovereignty of Great Britain and 
Egypt. Its trade and commercial privileges were declared 
free to all peoples and nations. The erection at Khar- 
toum of a college as a memorial of Gordon was indica- 
tive of England's enlightened policy of rule. 

The issue of the Fashoda incident in 1898 was a credit 
to Salisbury. Major Marchand in command of a small 
military force from the Congo had hoisted the French 
flag at Fashoda, a station on the Nile 300 miles above 
Khartoum, an act which England regarded as unfriendly 
since it threatened the control of that important river 
and valley by Great Britain. No attack was made on 
the French party though the English troops could easily 
have dislodged them. The firm and positive demand of 
Lord Salisbury on the French Government proved suffi- 
cient. France issued an order to Marchand to retire. 

Of most serious character was the South African diffi- 
culty. With the discovery of gold on the Witwatersrand 
in 1886 there began a rapid immigration of adventurous 
foreigners into the Transvaal. These trades-men, min- 
ers, laborers, technical experts and managers who had 
come to work the mines were termed "Outlanders" ; and 
among these "birds of passage" were to be found repre- 
sentatives of all races under the sun, though the British 
element was vastly predominant. By 1892 these stran- 
gers in the Dutch Republic numbered 77,000 and ex- 
ceeded the Boers three to one. Since the Conservative 
Boers and especially President Kriiger feared the political 
consequences of this increasing foreign population they 
did not accord them equal civil and political privileges 
with themselves, but on the contrary discriminated against 
them in matters of enfranchisement, representation in 



Ministries of Rosebery, Salisbury, and Balfour 193 

legislative bodies, education, taxation and the like. When 
the Outlanders in 1892 formed the Transvaal National 
Union for the purpose of airing their grievances and im- 
proving their condition and made appeal for aid directly 
to Great Britain, Kriiger began to curry favor with Ger- 
many and Holland and to import secretly large quanti- 
ties of ammunition and arms. Since the Dutch claimed 
that their Republic was a free and independent state and 
were ready to fight for their contention while England 
claimed that the state was under her sovereignty it was 
inevitable that conflict sooner or later would come. In 
1899 the Boer War began, the first contest with white 
men that England had had since the Crimean War. 

England was unprepared, lacking troops, ammunition, 
maps, artillery and transports. The British underesti- 
mated the strength of their opponents, and were igno- 
rant of the Boers' military preparations, remarkable cour- 
age, excellent marksmanship and ability in irregular war- 
fare. At first victory after victory went to the Boers — 
Stormberg, Magersfontein, Colenso, and Spionkop. They 
besieged the British in Ladysmith and Kimberley; and 
their splendid fighting under the able generalship of 
Cronje, DeWet and Louis Botha excited the astonishment 
and admiration of the world. Their tenacious resistance 
lasted nearly three years. Not until overwhelmed by 
vastly superior numbers did they yield. England raised 
her active army forces to 250,000, adding reinforcements 
of regulars or yeomanry and of troops from the colonies. 
From India, Canada, Cape Town, and Australia came 
military aid, over 450,000 men being sent by England 
to South Africa during the conflict. Lord Roberts was 
the Commander-in-Chief. In the closing months of the 
conflict under Lord Kitchener the number of England's 



194 England's Progress 

soldiers in South Africa to that of the Boers was as 
twenty to one. End of the guerilla warfare was only 
made by erecting block-houses at intervals, erecting 
barbed-wire entanglements and making a long series of 
"drives." On June I, 1902, the peace terms were signed 
at Vereeniging, by which both the Orange Free State and 
the Transvaal lost their independence and were made 
portions of the British Empire. The struggle added to 
England's national debt 160 millions. 

England's treatment of the conquered was generous 
and liberal. Money on easy terms was furnished for re- 
building their economic life, the largest sort of free- 
dom was given in their local government; and some of the 
ablest leaders of the Boer revolt were honoured by being 
placed in responsible offices in the new government; e.g. 
— Louis Botha was made Prime Minister of the Trans- 
vaal, who in graceful recognition of the courtesy "pre- 
sented to the Crown the finest jewel in the world." 5 

As to the justice, necessity, and conduct of the Boer 
War opinion among members of the Liberal Party was 
quite divided at times. Salisbury noting in 1900 the 
acute dissensions among his political opponents and being 
confident as to the result of a "Khaki election," sud- 
denly in the midst of the conflict dissolved Parliament 
and appealed to the country for its verdict on his policy. 
He had the pleasure of seeing enough Conservatives and 
Liberal Unionists returned to give his coalition ministry 
an undiminished majority. At the conclusion of the war 
however in the summer of 1902 on account of failing 
health he resigned office. The premiership fell to his 
nephew Mr. Arthur Balfour. A year later, August 22, 
occurred the death of Salisbury. 



Ministries of Rosebery, Salisbury, and Balfour 195 

balfour's ministry, august 1902-DECEMBER 1905 

Among the more important legislative activities of this 
ministry were the Education Act (1902), the Irish Land 
Act (1903) and the measures for reorganization of the 
Army (1904). The Education Act abolished the School 
Boards, placed in the hands of the County and Town 
Councils the control of primary education and gave to the 
denominational schools support from the tax rates. It 
provided that the secular education in these denomina- 
tional schools should be under the control of the public 
authority. Since it required the head teacher and a per- 
manent majority of the managers of the church schools 
to belong to the denomination and since most of these 
schools belonged to the Anglican Church the measure was 
not at all liked by the Non-Conformists. Their hostility 
and resistance to the Act was not without effect upon the 
popularity and strength of Balfour's ministry. The Irish 
Land Act, improved by an amendment in 1909, made 
possible the outright purchase by tenants of their hold- 
ings from landlords by the government's furnishing the 
purchase money needed. The tenant was allowed to re- 
turn the loan in annual installments which were less in 
amount than the former annual rental and ran over a 
period of forty-nine years. The tenants had received by 
earlier land acts the privilege of getting purchase money 
from the Treasury for acquiring their holdings, but not 
enough always to bridge the chasm between the price the 
tenant would offer and the price the landlord would take. 
The new law made possible more transfers and has re- 
sulted in Ireland becoming more and more a country of 
free-holders. Increase of land-owning by the Irish has 



196 England's Progress 

been attended too by economic and educational advance. 
The army reforms grew out of the unwelcome facts 
revealed at the outbreak of the Boer War concerning the 
unpreparedness, inefficiency and general defectiveness of 
England's whole military department. The Commission 
of Inquiry appointed by the government in 1902 to in- 
vestigate and report on the country's military system con- 
demned unsparingly the methods of the War Office and 
showed that a thoroughgoing reorganization was needed. 
As the result of the work of a War Office Reconstruc- 
tion Committee the office of Commander-in-Chief was 
done away with and control was placed in the hands of 
an Army Council composed of four military members 
and of one civil and one finance member whose president 
was the Secretary for War. A new important military 
Board, the Committee of Imperial Defense, was formed 
at the head of which was the Prime Minister and under 
which was a staff of ten or more military and naval offi- 
cers. Better treatment and better pay was provided for 
the private soldier and a special board was named for 
controlling army appointments. At the same time im- 
provements were made in the naval department. Ob- 
solete ships were sent to the scrap-heap, the method of 
selecting cadets was altered and plans laid for a steady 
enlargement of the navy. The government's policy ap- 
peared in the Cawdor Memorandum of 1905 advising 
the building every year of four modern dreadnaughts. 
' ; Tinkering with the tariff," as Americans say, seems to 
have caused the fall of Balfour's ministry. In 1903 on 
returning from a visit to South Africa, the Colonial Secre- 
tary, Mr. Chamberlain, suddenly and with rather star- 
tling effect presented in a speech the plan of employing a 
preferential tariff scheme as a means for binding together 



Ministries of Rosebery, Salisbury, and Balfour 197 

better the colonies and the mother-land. He believed 
that the high protective systems of such nations as the 
United States and Germany had given them great ad- 
vantages over free-trade England in allowing them to 
exclude from their markets England's wares while en- 
joying the right and practice of freely dumping their 
own products on the markets of Great Britain and her 
colonies. He held that industrial and commercial condi- 
tions had changed radically since the days of Peel, Bright 
and Cobden; likewise the Colonial ambitions of rival 
nations and the comparative manufacturing and mili- 
tary strength of different countries; and that the intro- 
duction of a system of reciprocity and preferential duties 
in colonial trade would benefit the whole British Empire. 
Such a plan would bring industrial prosperity to the home- 
land and bind together with the golden bands of mutual 
commercial advantage all parts of the realm. He would 
not tax raw materials needed for English factories but 
he would place moderate tariffs on such food products 
as grain, flour, butter, cheese, meats, and on foreign fac- 
tory wares. He would reduce somewhat the duties levied 
on the table comforts, teas, coffee, sugar and cocoa. 

His views attracted universal attention at the time and 
no end of discussion. The costs and indebtedness in- 
curred in the war just ended, the general business de- 
pression, lack of employment, jealousy of the growing 
power of rival nations, and the spirit of imperialism all 
tended to lend interest to his arguments and appeal. But 
since his proposal involved raising the price of food and 
contained the erroneous implication that custom revenues 
would not suffer though fewer imports were allowed he 
could win neither the majority of his fellow-members 
of the cabinet nor a majority of the public to accept his 



198 England's Progress 

views and leadership in the matter. Balfour was not 
opposed to the retaliatory feature of the proposition; 
but he did not favor the increased tax on the people's 
bread. The plan as a whole was regarded by the Prime 
Minister as impracticable and inopportune. He finally 
informed Chamberlain that the question of preferential 
tariffs could not be brought up during the existing Par- 
liament and made the suggestion that it be considered at 
length and formulated better at the next Colonial Con- 
ference. Mr. Chamberlain thereupon resigned from 
the Cabinet. Shortly after this several other members 
of the Cabinet quit also but strange to say for opposite 
reason. They were not followers of Chamberlain but 
held free-trade principles. They became dissatisfied be- 
cause Balfour expressed certain fiscal views that to them 
savoured a bit of the proposed protective programme. 
The Cabinet reconstructed with less capable men held 
on though with failing powers and waning prestige until 
1905. Conscious of the dissensions and divisions in his 
following that had arisen over not only the tariff ques- 
tion but over problems connected with education, labor, 
the army, and the aftermath of the Boer War Balfour 
in December of that year resigned also. He hoped that 
the disaffected Liberals would not be able to form a min- 
istry and that he and the Conservatives would be recalled 
to power. He was disappointed. Sir Henry Campbell- 
Bannerman, the foremost Liberal, became Prime Min- 
ister and formed a Cabinet having such able political 
leaders as Asquith, made Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
and Sir Edward Grey, Foreign Secretary. When in Janu- 
ary, 1906, Parliament was dissolved and appeal made 
to the country for support of the Liberal programme 
which demanded "the exclusion of Chinese labor from 



Ministries of Rosebery, Salisbury, and Balfour 199 

the Transvaal; the emendation of the Education Act 
in the interest of the Non-Conformists; the reduction and 
national control of liquor licenses; and sweeping meas- 
ures for social and industrial betterment," the party 
gained the grandest victory at the polls and the greatest 
majority in Parliament won since the election following 
the passage of the Reform Bill of 1832. 

REFERENCES 

1. Edwards: Notes on British History, Part IV, p. 1048. 

2. Edwards: Notes on British History, Part IV, p. 978. 

3. Bassett: United States, p. 815-816. 

4. Edwards: Notes on British History, Part IV, p. 937-938. 

5. Pollard: British Empire, p. 539. 



CHAPTER XV 

MINISTRIES OF CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, 
1906-1908, AND OF ASQUITH UP TO 1914 

A new epoch of reform activity was opened in 1906 
when the Conservatives who had enjoyed with the ex- 
ception of three years under Gladstone and Rosebery 
( 1 892-1 895) an uninterrupted lease of power for 
twenty years were ousted from leadership by the general 
election of that year. The returns showed 378 Lib- 
erals, 53 Labor representatives and 83 Irish National- 
ists as against 131 Conservatives and 25 Liberal Union- 
ists. A few of the Labor and Irish members were 
pledged to vote independently of party but still the gov- 
ernment could command a Liberal and Labor majority 
over all other groups combined of about 134. This ma- 
jority was reduced considerably in the two general elec- 
tions of 19 10 — one concerning the Budget and the other 
concerning limiting the powers of the House of Lords — 
so that the Liberal ministry had then to depend on the 
Irish Nationalist vote as well as on the Labor vote 
to conduct business. 1 

Bold was the spirit, radical and progressive were the 
principles of the Liberal government as it pressed for- 
ward its measures of political democracy and social re- 
form led first by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Prime 
Minister until his death in 1908 ; and then by Mr. Asquith, 
his successor in office, supported by his fearless, able 

Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Lloyd George. Among 

200 



Ministries of Campbell-Banner man and Asquith 201 

the foremost subjects dealt with were Irish Home Rule, 
restriction of the powers of the House of Lords, the dis- 
establishment of the Church of Wales, the reform of the 
taxing system, land reform, Workmen's Compensation, 
Labor Organizations, Education and Child Welfare, 
Employer's Liability, Old Age Pensions and National 
Insurance. 

This full and varied program was necessitated in 
large part by the nature and demands of several strong 
organizations that had backed the Liberals in the elec- 
tion. Support had come from the United Irish League 
of Great Britain that denounced the Conservatives' 
long rule of coercion for Ireland; from the Independent 
Labour Party, a moderate socialistic body organized by 
Keir Hardie in 1893; from the Fabian Society formed 
in the early eighties and led by Sydney and Beatrice Webb, 
G. B. Shaw and H. G. Wells that advocated the municipal 
or national ownership of land and industrial capital; 
from the Social Democratic Federation formed in 1883 
demanding the state maintenance of children and the 
provision by the State of work for the unemployed; and 
from the Congress of Trade Unions held not long be- 
fore the election representing about one and a half mil- 
lion of organized workers which favored such proposals 
as the nationalization of mines and railways, municipal 
banking, secular education in the state schools and old age 
pensions. Trade Unions sent in 1906 about half a hun- 
dred members to Parliament. The enactments of the 
Liberals revealed a more tender regard for the welfare 
of the workingman than for the interests of the capitalist 
or land-owner. The area of state interference in indus- 
try was enlarged; and individualistic methods gave place 
in some lines to collectivism and public action. The pow- 



202 EngUmd*s Progress 

crs oi democracy were consciously organized for the 
purpose of meeting various social needs. Mr. Aid en 
well expressed the new attitude. "The main point is that 
the function oi the State in the mind of the Liberal and 
Radical of to-d.iv is much wider in scope than seemed 
possible to our predecessors. The State avowedly claims 
the right to interfere with industrial liberty and to modify 
the old economic View of the disposal of private prop- 
erty. 1 iberalism recognizes that it is no longer possible 
to accept the view that all men have an equal chance. 
. . . The liberal asks that such economic changes shall 
be introduced as will make it possible for every man to 
possess a minimum oi security and comfort. Property 
is no longer to have an undue claim; great wealth must 
be prepared to bear burdens in the interests of the whole 
community. Our social system must have an ethical 
basis." - Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman declared "that 
underlying every proposal oi his government would be 
a policy oi social reconstruction looking toward a greater 
equalization of wealth, and the destruction of the op- 
pressive monopolies of the land and of liquor." Mr. 
Asquith stated "that the injustice of the present social 
system rendered a popular attack upon it inevitable"; 
that "property must be associated in the minds of the 
masses of the people with the ideas of reason and justice." 
Some of the ameliorative measures oi the Liberals that 
concerned labor conditions and the care of children and 
dependents were in keeping with the avowed principles 
of the Conservatives who since the days of Disraeli had 
proclaimed as a chief plank in their party platform social 
betterment. The party that had heralded its faith in 
the paternalistic creed of benevolent government could 
hardly hope for the future support of the masses had 



Ministries of Campbell-Banner man and Asquith 203 

it voted down such bills as those providing meals for 
the children of the poor at school, compensation to work- 
men accidentally injured and assistance to the industrious 
laborer in finding employment. The Workmen's Com- 
pensation Act (1906) consolidated the laws making em- 
ployers liable for payment to employees for injuries by 
accident suffered in their work. An Education Act of the 
same year conferred on the local educational authorities 
the power to provide the means of furnishing meals to 
school children. They may provide buildings, furniture 
and managers necessary for the preparation and service 
of meals. They are to collect the cost of furnishing the 
meals from the children's parents in case the parents are 
able to pay. If not the local authorities may apply to 
the Board of Education and that board may authorize 
them to spend out of the rates such sum as will meet the 
cost of the provision of such food provided that the 
amount expended does not exceed the sum produced by 
a rate of one half penny in the pound. 

The Children's Act sought to guard against cruel treat- 
ment of children at the hands of their parents, to classify 
and train properly the youths in reformatories and like 
penal institutions, to care better for the juvenile criminals 
by providing probation officers and children's courts, and 
by forbidding their commitment in the common gaols. 

The Old Age Pensions Act ( 1908) which was amended 
in 191 1 provided a pension for every person who attained 
seventy years of age and had been for twenty years pre- 
vious a British subject, and whose annual income did not 
exceed thirty-one pounds ten shillings. The pension 
varies in amount but may be as much as five shillings per 
week. The receipt of it does not deprive the recipient 
of any franchise right. The benefits of the law are de- 



204 England's Progress 

nied to such persons as have been habitually lazy and 
unemployed, are in receipt of poor relief, make false 
statements as to earnings and possessions or deprive them- 
selves of any property or income in order to qualify as 
pensioners. 

The Labor Exchanges Act (1909) dealt with the 
problem of unemployment. It established offices where 
registers are kept of employers needing workmen and 
of laborers seeking employment. Its purpose is to bring 
together supply and demand in the labor market by col- 
lecting all information available from both sides. The 
Trades Boards Act (1909) dealt with the "sweating" 
evils such as extremely low wages, excessive hours and 
unsanitary shops. The drift of population from the rural 
districts to the cities, the tendency of the weaker classes 
in cities to become dependent, early marriages, big fam- 
ilies, low standards of life, the inefficiency and ignorance 
of laborers and an excessive supply of unskilled work- 
men, all tended to create in some trades, such as tailor- 
ing and making of nets, laces and paper boxes, conditions 
that placed thousands of poor men, women and youths at 
the mercy of greedy and unscrupulous employers. The 
new law created boards empowered to fix minimum rates 
of wages and to enforce better conditions in the shops. 
Rates of wages may be fixed to apply universally to the 
trade or to any special process or to any special class of 
workers or to any special area within the trade. The 
Trade Boards anticipate disputes about wages. They 
.re permanent joint boards composed of representatives 
of laborers and of representatives of employers. They 
fix wages from time to time which have the force of law. 
Each special industry to which the Act applies has its own 
special trade board. The National Insurance Act ( 1 9 1 1 ) 



Ministries of Campbell-Banner man and Asquith 205 

provided insurance for illness and loss of work. It re- 
quired all employed manual laborers between sixteen and 
seventy years of age who earned less than 160 pounds a 
year to be insured and compelled their employers to con- 
tribute part of the insurance funds. The State pays to 
the fund per week two pence, the employer three, the 
workmen four. The insurance may be carried in a regu- 
lar insurance company or in a trade union approved by 
the State. Besides payment in times of sickness, such aids 
as medical attention, sanatorium treatment for tubercular 
cases and maternity benefits for mothers in parturition are 
given. In 19 17 fifteen million workers were insured under 
the Act and the insurance fund totaled 99,000,000 pounds. 
In 191 1 the State instituted an Unemployment Insurance 
system to be applied to a few enumerated trades. The 
employer and wage earner each contributed 2 l / 2 pence a 
week and the State one-third of their combined contribu- 
tion; and from this fund a man who was really unable to 
get work would be paid a small amount each week for 
a specified time. As many as a million and a half labour- 
ers are connected with this scheme. 3 

The Development Act (1909) provided for the Treas- 
ury making advances of money to a government depart- 
ment or through the department to an institution, asso- 
ciation or company not trading for profits for such pur- 
poses as promoting forestry, reclaiming and draining land, 
constructing and improving roads, and giving instruction 
in marketing arid scientific farming. The Housing Act 
(1909) was aimed at getting rid of the ills of over- 
crowded tenements. In 1901 the census commissioners 
declared that there were as many as 2,667,000 persons 
living in unsanitary quarters. In some of the industrial 
centres one-fifth of the people were living in one-room 



206 England's Progress 

dwellings and more than half in houses of not more than 
two rooms. Knowing that unsanitary housing accounted 
for much of the drunkenness, crime, pauperism, disease 
and high mortality in these places the government in the 
interests of decency and the public health determined to 
tear down the ugly back to back houses of the slums and 
to build in their stead new, comfortable, well-ventilated 
tenements; to provide gardens, parks, playgrounds and 
open sun-lit spaces for the recreation of the people, and 
to direct the future growth of towns with an eye to health, 
comfort and beauty as well as to business utility. This 
policy of government interference with the property of 
landlords was in spirit and purpose in keeping with sev- 
eral enactments passed in the last decade or two as the 
fruits in part of the activities of such organizations as the 
"Commons Prevention Society" formed in 1865 and the 
"Allotments and Small Holdings Association" formed in 
1885. The purposes of these societies have been to save 
from private enclosure and for public use many open 
areas about the cities and towns, and to encourage garden- 
ing and agricultural thrift among the laboring classes 
by providing a way by which they may rent on easy terms 
little patches for trucking or may purchase outright small 
farms by paying very moderate annual stipends over a 
number of years. The Small Holdings Act of 1892 made 
it the duty of each County Council, when the demand for 
small farms seemed to justify it, to secure (but not by 
compulsory purchase) suitable land, to fence, drain, and 
in general improve it and then lease or sell it to parties 
that would themselves cultivate it. The purchaser had 
to pay one-fifth of the price in cash; 4 he might leave one- 
fourth as perpetual ground rent and he could repay the 
remainder in half yearly instalments during a period not 



Ministries of Campbell-Banner man and Asquith 207 

longer than fifty years. By the allotment laws of 1882, 
1887, 1890 and 1894 it was made the duty of the local 
government through the parish councils to provide suffi- 
cient allotments varying from one-quarter of an acre to an 
acre in size for the poorer working-class families who de- 
sired them even if the land could be secured only through 
compulsory purchase. The growth in the number of such 
allotments has been rapid and continuous. In 1895 they 
numbered 579,133. By the Commons Law Amendment 
Act of 1893 the community's interest in the Common has 
been placed above the freedom of action and private ad- 
vantage of the lord of the manor. "Village greens, road- 
side wastes and open spaces" that have been long used 
for pasturage or cutting turf or recreation by the people 
are no longer allowed to be fenced off as gentlemen's 
private parks and game preserves. 

Several measures of social reconstruction proposed by 
the Liberals were staunchly and successfully opposed by 
the Conservatives. The latter was thoroughly intrenched 
in the House of Lords, an aristocratic body well repre- 
senting the landed interests. In spite of the overwhelm- 
ing popular majority of the Liberals in the House of 
Commons the Conservatives by means of the Peers de- 
feated the ministry's proposal for abolishing plural vot- 
ing, for having a general land valuation, for placing heavy 
license duties on public-houses and for a revision of the 
educational system. The Conservatives declared the in- 
tention of the Educational Bill of 1906 advocated by 
the Non-Conformists was to establish a purely secular 
system : and they were able to defeat the bill on the 
grounds that it was against the interest of religion and of 
the Established Church. The License Bill of 1908, a 
temperance and social reform measure, was opposed on 



20 8 England's Progress 

the grounds that it was confiscatory in principle and was 
class legislation. To forbid plural voting was a "dan- 
gerous novelty" ; the land proposals were "against vested 
rights"; and the new taxing schemes were nothing less 
than revolutionary. But the world war that opened in 
1 9 14 brought into being laws containing the substance 
of nearly all these rejected measures. 

The big clash between the Conservatives and the Lords 
on the one hand and the Liberals and Commons on the 
other occurred over the new and far-reaching proposals 
of Mr. Lloyd George's famous Budget of 1909. The 
Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to claim for the 
State a share of the unearned increment in land values, 
to tax at different rates income that was earned and in- 
come tl\at was unearned, to tax undeveloped property 
and to differentiate in treatment acquired wealth accord- 
ing as it had rendered service or "disservice" to society. 
Large revenues were needed to carry out the new costly 
social reforms, such as the expensive system of national 
insurance adopted; and to cover the increasing financial 
burdens for naval construction and maintenance of Em- 
pire made necessary by the militaristic and colonial plans 
projected by the Conservatives when in power. The pro- 
posals of the Chancellor were directed straight at the 
property of the rich. He suggested placing a twenty 
per cent tax on unearned increment on land payable on 
its sale or transfer; a special tax on the owners of mineral" 
lands who exacted royalties; a heavy graduated income 
tax, with a super-tax on incomes over 5,000 pounds and 
with a heavier tax on earned than on unearned incomes; 
high license taxes, a heavy tax on automobiles and motor 
cycles and inheritance taxes on a new scale. On estates 
over 1,000,000 pounds the inheritance tax was to be as 



Ministries of Campbell-Banner man and Asquith 209 

high as fifteen per cent. To defend England and to rid 
her of the curse of poverty was declared by Mr. George 
to be the purposes of his bill. Concluding his Budget 
speech in the Commons (April 29, 1909) he said "This 
. . . is a War Budget. It is for raising money to 
wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness. 
I cannot help hoping and believing that before this gen- 
eration has passed away we shall have advanced a great 
step towards that good time when poverty and wretched- 
ness and human degradation which always follow in its 
camp will be as remote to the people of this country as 
the wolves which once infested its forests." Supporting 
the proposal Mr. Winston Churchill, Secretary of State 
of the Home Department, declared "The tax gatherer is 
now to ask not only how much property a man has, but 
also how did he get it? He asks 'Did you earn it by your- 
self or has it been left to you by others? Was it gained 
by processes which are in themselves beneficial to the 
community in general, or was it gained by processes which 
have done no good to anyone, but harm? Was it gained 
by the enterprise and capacity necessary to found a busi- 
ness, or merely by squeezing and bleeding the owner and 
founder of the business? Was it gained by supplying the 
capital which industry needs, or by denying, except at 
extortionate price, the land which industry requires?' 
How did you get it? That is the new question which 
has been postulated, and which is vibrating in penetrat- 
ing repetition through the land?" 

Opposing the Budget were the landlord class, the real 
estate interests, the tobacco trade, the motor industry 
and a host of brewers, distillers, bankers and capitalists. 
The Lords declared it would destroy the credit of Eng- 
land, "the bank and the workshop of the world." It 



210 England's Progress 

would destroy the sanctity of property and confidence in 
England's financial prudence, equity, stability and 
strength. After long debate the Budget was passed in the 
House of Commons, having received a handsome ma- 
jority, but in the House of Lords it was defeated by an 
adverse vote of 350 to 75. This throwing out by the 
Peers of a money bill of the Commons planned to pro- 
vide for the services of the year was declared in the Lower 
House to be "a breach of the Constitution and a usurpa- 
tion of the rights of the House of Commons." Parlia- 
ment was dissolved and an appeal made to the country. 
In the election campaign that followed there was about 
as much discussion concerning mending or ending the 
House of Lords as concerning the merits or demerits of 
the Budget. The Socialists, Radicals and Irish were 
ready to abolish the Upper Chamber, stigmatized as the 
"one stagnant and unprogressive branch of the legisla- 
ture." The constitution of a legislative body on the he- 
reditary principle was declared "illogical and incom- 
patible with free institutions." It was urged that fa- 
voritism, or wealth, or political influence, or naval and 
military service, rather than eminent legislative ability 
was frequently the determining factor in appointments 
to the peerage, that "honors rather than duties are 
emphasized" and that it was a mistake to allow a title 
of honor to carry with it the right of making a nation's 
laws. It was declared that the representation of an as- 
sembly whose members numbering about 600 owned one- 
third of the cultivated and over one-fourth of all the land 
of England (on an average of 38,672 acres for each 
peer) was decidedly one-sided and unfair. It gave too 
much weight to the landed aristocracy and too little to 
the commercial, manufacturing and industrial interests 



Ministries of Campbell-Banner man and Asquith 211 

of the country. The Chamber was criticized as "out of 
touch with the people." The hereditary principle was 
constantly ridiculed. "We allow babies to be ear-marked 
in their cradles as future law-makers, utterly regardless 
as to whether they turn out to be statesmen, or fools, or 
rogues." 5 

The Liberal Party did not agree with the Radicals in 
believing that the House of Lords should be abolished 
but they were opposed to its vetoing vital laws passed 
by the Commons and were determined to abridge or 
restrict its power. They did not desire single chamber 
government, believing it beneficial to have the Upper 
Chamber exercising powers of delay and suggestion of 
amendment; but they were resolved to destroy forever 
the Lord's veto power over the money bills of the Com- 
mons and over other public bills that were clearly the 
desire of the people. In the election (January, 19 10) 
the Liberals won though they lost almost a hundred 
seats. The Budget was again presented and the Lords 
this time yielded its passage. 

In the spring of 19 10 occurred the death of the sov- 
ereign, Edward VII, who was succeeded by his son George 
V. This occasioned a sort of truce between the Con- 
servatives and Liberals for a few months but with the 
assembling of Parliament the fight was again renewed. 
In November a dead-lock occurred that caused another 
appeal to the country. In this second election (December, 
19 10) the Liberals made slight gains and now felt strong 
enough to press for restricting the power of the Lords. 
The main provision of Mr. Asquith's Parliamentary Bill 
read: "If any money Bill, having been passed by the 
House of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords 
at least one month before the end of the session, is not 



212 England's Progress 

passed by the House of Lords without amendment within 
one month after it is sent up to the House, the Bill shall, 
unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be 
presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Par- 
liament on the Royal assent being signified, notwithstand- 
ing that the House of Lords have not consented to the 
Bill. 

"If any Public Bill (other than Money Bill or a Bill 
containing any provision to extend the maximum dura- 
tion of Parliament beyond five years) is passed by the 
House of Commons in three successive sessions (whether 
of the same Parliament or not) and, having been sent up 
to the House of Lords at least one month before the end 
of the session, is rejected by the House of Lords in each 
of these sessions, that Bill shall, unless the House of 
Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Maj- 
esty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal As- 
sent being signified thereto, notwithstanding that the 
House of Lords have not consented to the Bill. Provided 
that this provision shall not take effect unless two years 
have elapsed between the date of the second reading in 
the first of these sessions of the Bill in the House of Com- 
mons and the date on which it passes the House of Com- 
mons in the third of these sessions," etc., etc. 

The Bill was stoutly resisted by the Lords. They 
claimed that it practically set up single-chamber govern- 
ment; that the advantages of the period of delay pro- 
vided in the Bill were illusory; that the suggestions of the 
weakened Upper House would be treated with contempt 
by the all-powerful Lower House ; that the supporters of 
the Bill did not realize what a revolutionary thing they 
were proposing; that they had brought in the Bill with 



Ministries of Campbell-Banner man and Asquith 213 

the "trivial elegance with which they introduced a turn- 
pike Act" ; and seemed to regard 'The House of Lords 
as simply a culprit to be hanged without shift and with- 
out repentance." In the minds of the Liberals the Bill 
was a "strictly true constitutional proposition" since to 
give this increased authority to the Commons simply 
meant to acknowledge the supremacy of the people in 
law-making; and when their leader Mr. Asquith made 
known the fact that the king was with them in the con- 
test and ready if necessary to create enough new peers to 
insure its passage they were able to force the unwilling 
assent of the Lords. To have allowed some hundred or 
so peers to be created solely to pass the measure would 
have made, as the Archbishop of Canterbury thought, 
the House and the country "a laughing stock in the Do- 
minions and in foreign countries." In August, 191 1, the 
Bill became law. 

Unpopular with the Conservatives and Lords also was 
the Act of the Liberal Government that gave members 
of parliament salaries of 400 pounds a year, which was 
passed shortly after the Parliament Act. The measure 
was pleasing to the Laborites and the democracy gen- 
erally since it made possible the entry into parliamentary 
service of a large number of more capable and desirable 
men whose means were limited and saved political and 
industrial organization? the burden of supporting out of 
their funds some of then representatives in the Commons. 
Opponents of the Act had argued that paid members of 
Parliament would become mere "delegates of their con- 
stituents rather than free representatives, and suffer loss 
of moral authority" ; that paying members salaries would 
result in bringing to the halls of Westminster the profes- 
sional politician and agitator; that the rate of pay would 



214 England's Progress 

be increased until it became a heavy burden on the tax 
payer and that it would lead to claims for payment for 
many services formerly rendered gratuitously in both 
national and local governments. 

In 19 12 Mr. Asquith introduced his Home Rule Bill. 
It provided for a parliament in Ireland, consisting of a 
senate of 40 members and a house of commons of 164 
members. Ulster, the Northern Province of 1 1 counties, 
was to have 59 members. The Irish Parliament could not 
make any law to establish or endow any religion or pro- 
hibit the free exercise thereof or give any privilege or 
impose any disability on account of religious belief. It 
could not legislate on peace or war, the navy, army, for- 
eign relations, trade outside Ireland, coinage or legal 
tender. The executive was to remain vested in the sov- 
ereign or his representative, and 42 members from Ireland 
were to be elected to the British House of Commons. The 
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was to have 
power to pass on the constitutionality of any act of the 
Irish Parliament. The Irish Exchequer was to bear in 
main the expenses of the Irish administration. The Im- 
perial Exchequer was to pay a permanent annual sum to 
the Irish Exchequer of 20.0,000 pounds. The first year it 
would pay a sum of 500,000 pounds. 

The measure met with staunch and bitter opposition 
from the Conservatives and Unionists of England and 
from the prosperous Protestant minority of Ulsterites. 
Ulster returned 17 Home Rulers and 16 anti-Home 
Rulers. Nearly half of the best of Ulster has a popula- 
tion purely Scotch and English, a people thrifty, mat- 
ter of fact, and different from the Irish in language, tem- 
perament, history and religion. This alien minority pre- 
fers English to Irish rule. Energetic and enterprising it 



Ministries of Campbell-Banner man and Asquith 215 

has built up many great industries and commercial under- 
takings, and it believes that there is nothing to gain and 
much to lose by having themselves, their business and 
property placed at the mercy of an Irish parliament. Be- 
tween the Catholic Celts of Ireland and the Protestant 
colonizers of Ulster has long existed a bitter animosity; 
and the latter were unwilling to have their laws and taxes 
determined by a parliament in which the former had an 
overwhelming majority. These Englishmen of Ulster, 
numbering about one and a half millions declared that 
England could not honorably remove them from the pro- 
tection of the British Parliament; that as Englishmen 
they had a right to English government; and that before 
they would submit to be subjected to the rule of Irish- 
men they would go to war. They had the sympathy of 
the Conservatives and Unionists, who opposed Home 
Rule on the grounds that the concession of a parliament 
given in the Bill would be regarded by the Irish as a 
mere installment of their right; that it was a step toward 
establishing a hostile nation on England's flank; that 
Ireland was close at hand and could be best governed 
from London; that agrarian troubles had been at the 
bottom of Irish discontent and that these were being re- 
moved through better land laws and the government's 
policy of furnishing to the agricultural and industrial 
interests of the country financial aid and the directing 
skill of experts. 

The friends of Home Rule on the other hand affirmed 
that Ireland possessed a distinct nationality and had there- 
fore a right to govern herself; that Ireland did not desire 
separation from England, but did seek the repeal of the 
Act of Union, which was never consented to and which 
had resulted in an unpopular, inefficient and extravagant 



216 England's Progress 

system of government ; that progress in the material and 
intellectual life of the people would follow from the ex- 
ercise of self-government; that England would make Ire- 
land friendly by making her free; and that the Ulster 
Unionist minority exaggerated their importance when 
magnifying t^eir claims above the just demand of a whole 
nation; and that they had no reason to expect unfair treat- 
ment by the Nationalists in a native parliament since in 
matters of local government they had been justly dealt 
with. 

After two years of struggle, thanks to the Parliamen- 
tary Act of 191 1, that thwarted the veto power of the 
House of Lords, the Home Rulers won. The Bill was 
passed for the third time by the House of Commons in 
May, 1 9 14, and was signed by the King and placed on 
the statute book the next September. But owing to the 
unwillingness of Ulster to be included within the pro- 
visions of the Act, its opposition under the leadership of 
Sir Edward Carson taking the militant form of raising 
and drilling a volunteer army of 100,000, operation of 
the Act was repeatedly suspended; and finally by reason 
of the fight with Germany was postponed to the end of 
the War. When this closed the situation in Ireland was 
so changed that Lloyd George, who was now at the head 
of the government, had eventually to work out an en- 
tirely new Act. 

A measure of the Liberal Government that was very 
popular with the Non-Conformists was the Welsh Dis- 
establishment and Disendowment Bill. According to the 
report of the Royal Commission appointed in 1906 to get 
the facts in the case the Church of England had in Wales 
about 193,081 communicants while the Non-Conformist 
bodies had about 550,280 members. The Church of Eng- 



Ministries of Campbell-Banner man and Asquith 217 

land was the largest religious body in Wales and had pros- 
pered and grown in recent years. Between the years 
1 899-1 908 the number of persons confirmed averaged 
11,584 as against 10,178 for the previous ten years. The 
Church in Wales was not a separate organization from 
the Church of England but a constituent and old part of 
it for the "Welsh dioceses were sending their proctors 
to the Canterbury Houses of Convocation more than two 
and a half centuries before the Welsh counties were send- 
ing their representatives to the English Parliament." 6 
Between the Church in Wales and the rest of the Church 
of England existed full "ecclesiastical, constitutional, 
legal, and historical identity." The gross income of the 
Welsh dioceses in 1906 was 556,000 pounds, of which 
amount 296,000 representing voluntary contributions 
would be unaffected by the bill ; but of the remaining 260,- 
000 derived from endowments 175,000 represented na- 
tional property, so the Liberals declared, and this amount 
the Bill would take away. The Conservatives and 
Churchmen denounced the proposal as confiscation pure 
and simple. They denounced as spurious and false the 
Liberals' secular argument that the State should have 
nothing whatever to do with religion; and claimed that 
those who favored disestablishment of the Church in 
Wales were working also toward disestablishment of the 
Church in England. Those favoring the Bill argued that 
an established church occupied an unfair, privileged posi- 
tion; that its clergy enjoyed a monopoly of public ecclesi- 
astical appointments and that its Bishops alone of reli- 
gious leaders had seats in a House of Parliament; that 
establishment was prejudicial to national unity; that es- 
tablishment allowed Parliament a secular body to legis- 
late in church matters; that disestablishment in Ireland, 



218 England's Progress 

the British Dominions and in America had proved bene- 
ficial; that disestablishment in Wales had been de- 
manded repeatedly by a majority of its inhabitants and 
that the Church in Wales was "alien" in its character 
and represented a mere minority of its people. The 
trend of the times was with the Liberals. In 19 13 the 
Bill in slightly modified form passed the Commons for 
the second time with a good normal majority. By the 
Lords it was vetoed by a vote of 242 to 88. But in 
19 14 the disestablishment act was passed. 

Other political problems that commanded considerable 
attention in England during Asquith's ministry before the 
Great War opened were tariff reform, extension of the 
franchise, woman suffrage and armament. England's 
low revenue tariff, collected on tobacco, tea, spirits, wine 
and sugar, did not satisfy the tariff reformers. They 
complained that foreign nations had thrived on protec- 
tion, building up their industries and manufactures by en- 
joying the double advantage of having an uninvaded home 
market and of having a dumping ground for their sur- 
plus products in free trade England. They proposed to 
regulate foreign imports so that the maximum of employ- 
ment might be given to British hands in supplying the 
British nation with its wants ; to have Great Britain nego- 
tiate treaties of reciprocity with other states, yielding 
the British home and colonial markets only for advanta- 
geous concessions in their possessions; and to establish 
between England and its colonies and India a permanent 
policy of Imperial preference in trade. The reformers 
realized that since England was dependent on other coun- 
tries for her food-supply the changes they advocated 
would involve enhancing the price of the necessities of 



Ministries of Campbell-Banner man and Asquith 219 

life for the English people, but they argued that this dis- 
advantage would be more than offset by the advantages 
that would result from more constant employment, in- 
creased wages, and the general growing prosperity of a 
manufacturing nation. But the cause of tariff reform did 
not strengthen before 19 14. Taxed food and restricted 
trade were not popular with the consumers and shippers. 
The woman suffrage and extension of franchise ques- 
tions were conspicuously in evidence in 19 12. The women 
of England had had experience in the government of their 
schools since 1870, being then allowed to sit as members 
on the school boards, and had exercised the franchise in 
many other local government matters since 1888 and 
1894. They sought now the parliamentary vote and of- 
fered no end of reasons in their favor. They said they 
should have the ballot because women held large stakes 
in the country, paid taxes and had distinct interests; be- 
cause women were intellectually as capable as men and 
had shown their political capacity by good work on local 
and municipal councils and by acting as canvassers and 
speakers to assist men in political campaigns; because 
about seventy town councils had passed resolutions in 
favor of woman suffrage; because the enfranchisement of 
women in New Zealand and Australia had been beneficial 
and because in Finland, Norway, Sweden, and several of 
the states of the United States women had been given the 
vote on the same terms as men. The opponents of the 
movement declared that the safety of the state would be 
imperilled by having questions of peace and war decided 
by those who did not bear arms ; that women outnumber- 
ing men in England would control the government; that 
the parliamentary vote would result in placing women in 



220 England* s Progress 

Parliament, in the Cabinet and in the judiciary which 
would be unwise; that the vote was not wanted by a 
great proportion of the women of England. 

The movement was but one phase of a world-wide 
progress making on the part of women due to a new 
economic freedom gained in the Industrial Revolution 
and to the strength and knowledge acquired through en- 
joying the same educational advantages as men. In the 
summer of 19 10 a Woman Suffrage Bill giving to women 
the franchise on practically the same terms as for men 
passed its second reading in the House of Commons but 
was then killed in committee of the whole. To conciliate 
modern opinion the advocates of the proposal tried to 
pass a measure conferring the ballot only on the proper- 
tied classes of women but the proposition was not sup- 
ported by the Liberal Government. The proposed re- 
form was opposed as not democratic in spirit. The Prime 
Minister announced his intention of introducing a 
straight manhood suffrage bill and of giving the friends 
of woman suffrage the chance to amend it in their interest. 
This spelled defeat for the women, for they knew that 
without the support of the Premier and Cabinet they 
would carry through no desirable amendment, and they 
were not agreed among themselves as to the wisdom and 
desirability of having general adult suffrage which meant 
to confer the vote on five or six million women, of whom 
many didn't want it and many more were wholly unpre- 
pared for it. 7 The suffragists expected better things of 
the Liberal Government and declared they had been de- 
ceived by the fair words of the Prime Minister. Dis- 
appointed and, as they asserted, ignored and dishonorably 
treated they resorted to militant tactics and demonstra- 



Ministries of Campbell-Banner man and Asquith 221 

tions of violence in the hope of forcing the Government 
to heed their demands. They smashed windows, de- 
stroyed beautiful paintings, blew up palaces, ruined the 
mail in the letter boxes, interfered in the Derby throwing 
to the ground the king's horse, fired vacant buildings, 
destroyed railway coaches, raided the House of Com- 
mons, forced their way into the houses of Cabinet officers, 
fought the police, placed bombs in churches, wrecked golf 
links, defied the courts, and when sent to jail for their 
crimes dared the "hunger-strike" attempting to starve 
themselves as martyrs to the cause. In some cases 
forcible feeding broke the "hunger strike" but in others 
it failed. Mr. McKenna, the Home Secretary, thought 
he had solved the problem when his prisoners' bill was 
passed allowing him to reincarcerate prisoners who had 
been released after self-imposed starvation. Under this 
"cat and mouse act" Mrs. Pankhurst and the leading 
suffragists were repeatedly arrested, released and re- 
arrested, seemingly without effect upon their ardor. The 
suffragists made war only on property but they threatened 
to take life also if their cause was not fairly considered. 
They were thoroughly organized, had strong financial 
backing and could claim able supporters in both of the 
chief political parties as well as among the Laborites 
and Socialists. Their threats did not advance their in- 
terests but their loyal, useful services and noble-spirited 
sacrifices during the war did. In the Franchise Bill of 
19 18 they won. 

In view of what later occurred in 19 14, the warnings 
concerning the necessity of increased armament spoken of 
in 19 1 2 by men of vision are of interest as well as the 
way in which England received them. "Few thinking men 



222 England's Progress 

can doubt/ said Sir J. D. Rees, "that collision is sooner 
or later inevitable between Great Britain, which claims, 
and at present possesses, dominion of the seas, and the 
German Empire, the redundant population of which is 
shut out by our navy from all the most desirable parts of 
the earth. The ultimate struggle is as inevitable as was 
that between Spain and Britain, or that between Ger- 
many and France." Germany was believed to have the 
ambition to acquire Holland and Belgium. If this gain 
were had the nation would be in a position to seriously 
injure England's sea-power. Germany steadily enlarged 
expenditure on new naval construction between the years 
1905 and 191 1 and this increase in building large ar- 
moured cruisers, battle-ships and dreadnaughts meant 
attack on England and necessitated a stronger defense. 
It was urged that England should be prepared to meet 
an invasion of 70,000 men and that the military estab- 
lishment should be raised from 312,000 to 800,000. Eng- 
land's naval reserve of some 55,000 was declared to be 
insufficient. The substitution of the German compulsory 
for the English voluntary principle of military service was 
urged which would have involved an additional cost of 
about four millions. 

But the English as a nation were not convinced of the 
necessity of carrying heavier military burdens. Support- 
ing a navy about equal to that of both Germany and the 
United States, they saw no reason for maintaining a big 
expensive army establishment at home. They opposed 
compulsory service on the grounds that it was inconsistent 
with the liberty of the subject and that it hurt business. 
They claimed that costly preparations for war promoted 
war and as peace lovers urged arbitration as the proper 



Ministries of Campbell-Banner man and Asquith 223 

method of settling International disputes. Such facts re- 
veal that England was surely not the aggressor in open- 
ing the Great War. 

REFERENCES 

1. Hayes: British Social Politics, p. 19. 

2. Alden: Democratic England, p. 5-7. 

3. Turbeville & Howe: Great Britain in the Latest Age, p. 

194-195. 

4. Cheney: Industrial and Social History of England, p. 271. 

5. Moran: The English Government, p. 194. 

6. Roundell, Earl of Selborne: A Defence of the Church of 

England Against Disestablishment, p. 370. 

7. Robinson & Beard: Outlines of European History, p. 521. 



CHAPTER XVI 

CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 

Toward the close of the summer of 19 14 suddenly 
broke out the Great European War. To account for the 
outbreak numerous features of the condition of Europe 
must be considered. The immediate occasion of the con- 
flict was the assassination by a band of conspirators of the 
Archduke Francis Ferdinand, successor to the Austro- 
Hungarian throne, and his consort on June 28, 19 14, 
while they were paying a visit to Sarajevo, the capital of 
Bosnia, an Austrian province that adjoins Servia. An in- 
vestigation of the crime by a judicial commission of the 
Austria-Hungary government, which inquiry however was 
conducted in secret and on Bosnian territory, led that gov- 
ernment to the belief that the murder of Archduke Fer- 
dinand had been systematically planned, possibly with 
the cognizance of the Servian governmental authorities. 
Ferdinand was much hated in Servia because he was a pro- 
nounced and powerful exponent of Austro-Hungarian 
unity and strength, while the Servians were in sympathy 
with the revoluntionary organization active in the South- 
ern provinces of Austria which sought to win for some 
of the Slav districts independence of Austria and possibly 
incorporation with Servia. That the murder of an Aus- 
trian prince should have turned quickly the whole of 
Europe into a field of war cannot be understood until one 
takes into account the racial differences, the groupings and 
alliances and the cross purposes of the leading European 
nations. 

224 



Causes of the World War 225 

Within the Southeastern section of Europe about Aus- 
tria and the Balkans were and are various races and rem- 
nants of races that have been fighting one another in in- 
vasions and counter-invasions of territory since the bar- 
barian hordes first proceeded forth from the Arian 
plains of Asia. There has been hatred and conflict be- 
tween Roman and Teuton; between Teuton and Slav; 
Slav and Hungarian; Hungarian and Austrian; German 
and Bohemian; Greek and Bulgarian; Servian and Aus- 
trian; and between Turk and French and Russian. There 
have been conflicts between Moslems and Christians; 
Roman Christians and Greek Christians; Jews and Gen- 
tiles; Protestants and Catholics; between all sorts of "be- 
lievers" and "infidels." In this quarter of Europe politi- 
cal boundaries cut across ancient persistent divisions of 
race, language and religion. Uprisings have been fre- 
quent and states are in the making. 

Since 1683 when a Turkish army besieged Vienna — 
the highwater mark of Turkish conquest in Europe — 
there has been a steady decline in Ottoman supremacy 
attended by losses of territory and the rise of new states. 
In 1699 Hungary broke away from Turkish rule; in 
1833 Greece; in 1703 Montenegro; in 1856 Roumania; in 
1830 Servia; in 1878 Bulgaria. In 1774 Russia got land 
on the Black Sea, and in 1792 advanced to the Dniester 
River, and to the Pruth River in 18 12. In 188 1 England 
took Egypt and in 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bos- 
nia and Herzegovina. In 1881 France got Tunis and 
in 191 1 Morocco. In 19 12 Italy took Tripoli and as a 
result of the First and Second Balkan Wars (19 12-19 13) 
the Balkan States divided among themselves all of Eu- 
ropean Turkey except Constantinople and a small terri- 
tory adjoining it on the north. For some years previous 



226 England's Progress 

to 19 14 Germany had been getting control in Turkey, 
furnishing officers to train its army and capital for its 
business enterprises. 

Germany planned the extension of German influence 
and control through the Balkans to the iEgean and 
through Asia Minor to the rich plains of the Tigris and 
Euphrates Rivers. The Pan-Germanists sought unre- 
stricted trade-routes in these lands for their surplus man- 
ufactures. They coveted also control of the harbors of 
Belgium and Holland. They sought through enlarging 
their navy to challenge England's supremacy on the seas, 
and they intended to win a colonial empire to care for 
their rapidly expanding population. They would build 
a great confederation of states including Germany, Aus- 
tria, Hungary, the Balkan States and Turkey; and would 
construct a grand railway from Constantinople to Bagdad 
which would tie the great trunk lines leading from the 
Rhine and Danube valleys to Constantinople and the Per- 
sian Gulf, thus establishing a short route to India. The 
aims of Germany were seconded by Austria. Russia 
wanted the Balkans too and Constantinople and free ac- 
cess to the Mediterranean through control of the Black 
Sea, the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. She coveted also an 
outlet to the open sea on the northwest through the Scan- 
dinavian peninsula and some part of Eastern Prussia with 
its Baltic seacoast. England was opposed to the estab- 
lishment of either a German or a Russian authority at 
Constantinople, lest she should lose her Mediterranean 
supremacy and her hold on India. She had a dominion 
that included about 25 per cent of the habitable land of 
the globe and over 27 per cent of its population. If the 
Pan-Germanists' dream of naval supremacy and colonial 
empire ever came true the Briton knew it must be at Eng- 



Causes of the World War 227 

land's expense. France in gaining Morocco in 191 1 had 
almost come to arms with Germany. And since the 
Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71 the French had talked 
of a future war of revenge when they should recover 
their lost provinces, Alsace and Lorraine. As to Servia, 
its size had been almost doubled by the first (191 2) and 
second (19 13) Balkan wars at the expense of Turkey 
and Bulgaria. A part of this added territory came from 
a strip of land, the Sanjak of Novibazar, which before 
the recent Balkan wars was a Turkish possession running 
up between Servia and Montenegro to Austria. The lat- 
ter state, encouraged too by its ally Germany, had long 
hoped to gain that strip, since through it a route might 
be had to the iEgean and the East for the trade of these 
two nations; but the dividing of that land between Ser- 
via and Montenegro at the close of the war thwarted 
Austria in that purpose and placed a solid barrier of Slav 
domination across the path of German-Austrian ambition. 
During the last century three ever present active forces 
have been felt in European international affairs, the 
steady pressure as of a slow-moving glacier of Russia to 
the westward, the colonial expansion of England, and the 
rise of Prussianized Germany. In 19 14 these forces came 
into open conflict. Then Europe was divided in 19 14 
into two hostile combinations, heavily armed. The Tri- 
ple Alliance and the Triple Entente. The former Bis- 
marck's creation, including Germany, Austria and Italy, 
had been formed (1881) to defend Germany from the 
attacks of neighbors west and east, France and Russia, 
both of whom had lost territory to Prussia in earlier con- 
flicts. Italy had joined the Alliance because jealous of 
French expansion along the northern coast of Africa, and 
because the young nation was flattered at being welcomed 



228 England's Progress 

into the circle of the Great Powers. Her traditional 
enemy, however, was Austria; and since she coveted the 
ports of Albania and the Austrian ports of Trieste and* 
Fiume, she was opposed to Austria's Balkan policy of 
further expansion along the Adriatic. To offset the 
Triple Alliance there arose ( 1 907 ) the Triple Entente, 
an agreement for defense between Russia, England and 
France developed out of the Dual Alliance between 
France and Russia (1893), the Entente Cordiale be- 
tween England and France (1904) and the Anglo-Rus- 
sian Accord of Great Britain and Russia (1907). Both 
of these groups, and especially the Continental members 
of the groups, suspicious and fearful began steadily to 
increase their armaments. Fortifications were strength- 
ened, strategic military railways constructed, munition fac- 
tories enlarged, submarines and airships built, rapid fire 
rifles, machine guns and cannon manufactured and stored 
in great quantities, plans for military campaigns prepared 
and information gained through spies of the defenses of 
the rival powers. In camp and in reserve Germany could 
muster 4,870,000 trained soldiers and France 3,670,000. 
These competitive military operations made for war. 
Twice before 19 14 the outbreak almost occurred. In 
191 1 when France got Morocco against Germany's will 
and in 19 13 when Servia at the close of the Second Bal- 
kan War got increased territory against the will of Aus- 
tria-Hungary. Had there been no Triple Alliance guar- 
anteeing Germany's aid to Austria, if attacked, the Aus- 
trian ultimatum to Servia might not have been so peremp- 
tory and unreasonable; a satisfactory compliance with it 
might have been possible. Servia's request for more 
time for deliberation, or suggestion of settlement by arbi- 
tration, might have been agreed to and thus war averted ; 



Causes of the World War 229 

or per contra, had there been no Triple Entente, giving 
assurance of aid from England and France to Russia 
under certain conditions, Russia might not have stiffened 
Servia's resistance to Austria, an agreement might have 
been had and the war averted. 

Causative of the war were such forces and factors as 
the growth of nationalism, the rise of democracy, pres- 
sure of population, the birth rate, low in France, high in 
Germany and Russia, trade rivalries, and imperial pro- 
grams of colonial and naval expansion. In 1871 Ger- 
many's position in business and commerce was relatively 
low compared with Great Britain's; but by 1905 she was 
the chief competitor. Between 1875 and 1905 Great 
Britain's total import and export business increased 49%, 
Germany's 120%. As to the merchant marine, the in- 
crease in tonnage was for Great Britain 76%; for Ger- 
pany 220%. Germany was set upon building a great 
colonial empire and determined also to challenge Eng- 
land's sea supremacy. Von Tirpitz's statement in his Ger- 
man naval bill of 1900 was pointed straight at England: 
"to protect Germany's sea trade and colonies . . . there 
is only one means: Germany must have a battle fleet so 
strong that even for an adversary with the greatest sea 
power, a war against it would involve such dangers as to 
imperil his own position in the world . . . the German 
battle fleet should be as strong as the greatest naval 
Power." A race between the two nations in naval arma- 
ments costing many millions followed. 

The German character and Kultur were chief factors 
in producing this war. Proud of their industrial and com- 
mercial progress, puffed up with their learning and science, 
boastful of their educational schemes of specialization and 
efficiency, unbalanced by reason of victories at arms over 



230 England's Progress 

Denmark, Austria and France, unchristian, materialistic, 
cynical, conceited, worshipping force, glorifying war, and 
declaring the Teutons superior to all other races and di- 
vinely appointed to rule the world their leaders looked 
forward to and courted battle, and in particular at some 
time with England. Not only the militarists, but accord- 
ing to a statement of the Kaiser the majority of the 
German people were hostile to England about 1908. For 
some years it had been the habit of the German navy to 
drink a toast "to the Day," which meant in the minds of 
the naval officers the time when war should be declared 
against England. By the teachings and writings of 
prominent University professors and army officers such as 
Professor Treitschke and General Bernhardi the German 
nation had been taught to think of war as a good, as a 
necessity in a nation's proper development, and to believe 
that Germany's destined expansion would ere long pro- 
duce conflict with England. In the teachings of the Pan- 
Germanists, Great Britain was the great "Robber State" 
that had acquired a fourth of the globe by filching it from 
weak, uncivilized races; that arrogantly assumed a lord- 
ship of all seas; and that had the temerity to undertake 
to dictate to other Powers the boundaries of their states 
and dependencies. Her numerous possessions had not 
been won by her own strength, they said, but had merely 
fallen to her as the results of timely and selfish inter- 
ference between other nations. Her wont had been to 
build up coalitions and alliances against any power of 
Europe that promised to become dominant, furnishing 
the allies money who did the fighting. She was always 
present at the settlement of the conflict, playing the role 
of arbiter in the interest of preserving the balance of 
power but always to her own advantage and to the injury 



Causes of the World War 231 

of the strongest European nation. So she had dealt with 
Spain, France, Holland; she now sought to injure Ger- 
many. They claimed that England's greatness was in part 
a gift of Germany; that through Prussia's assistance 
Great Britain had won victories over Louis XIV and Na- 
poleon; and that but for Prussia's engagement of Eng- 
land's continental enemies Great Britain would not have 
been able during the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) 
to oust France from the new world, to win naval suprem- 
acy and enlarge her colonial possessions. England's rule 
over varied peoples was an unrighteous rule, justly hated 
by the subjects. To them England was a hypocritical, 
Pharisaical nation, proclaiming its mission to disseminate 
everywhere ideas of liberty, justice, and democracy yet 
actually guilty meanwhile of the most criminal acts of 
suppression, intolerance and tyranny. In support of the 
charge were cited the revolt of the American colonies, 
the struggle of the Boers, the treatment of Ireland and 
the subjugation of India. The British Empire was a pre- 
tentious sham; it lacked inherent strength they said. 
Widely scattered its various portions, divided by oceans, 
inhabited by diverse races, lacking genuine unity and hom- 
ogeneity: its members were held together only by the 
British navy. Were this defensive band once severed the 
colonies and dependencies would fall away from England 
like leaves from a withered branch. The English peo- 
ple were spoken of as unvirile and decadent. Snugly en- 
sconced in their island they had lost their martial quali- 
ties and could not successfully contend with a strong foe. 
Their imperial glory would depart as was the case with 
Rome. The Teutons had overthrown the decadent Em- 
pire of the Caesars in the fifth century, and brought low 
pretentious Austria and pretentious France in the eigh- 



232 England's Progress 

teenth and nineteenth centuries. They would now humble 
England. Prussia had to fight the smaller German states, 
Austria and France in order to expand into a mighty 
nation; and so the German Empire to realize its colonial 
ambitions would have to fight to a finish with Great Brit- 
ain, the nation that had already staked off as her own 
most of the sparsely occupied and undeveloped lands of 
the earth. 

And according to the Teutonic philosophy for the Ger- 
mans to cease to fight was to cease to live. They said that 
Germany had more people than it could profitably employ, 
that the area suitable for tillage had been almost ex- 
hausted, as well as the possibilities of increase from the 
employment of scientific agricultural processes, that in- 
dustries and manufactures had grown at a rate far in 
excess of the domestic needs, that more lands and mar- 
kets had to be had somewhere for her surplus population 
and manufactured products; that these could only be had 
at the expense of some other power and that this meant 
war eventually with England. According to their Re- 
ligion of Valor he will and should take who can. War 
had been presented to the German mind as profitable, 
educative, glorious, as a paying business and one too that 
developed in men the highest virtues. The territorial 
accessions, the war indemnities, such as the 5,000,000,000 
francs gotten at the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian 
war, proved that war for Germany had been a gainful 
occupation. War, they preached, disciplined the spirit 
of man, elevated him above materialism, gave him vision, 
and developed endurance, self-sacrifice, courage and like 
heroic virtues. General Bernhardi proclaimed that 
"might is right and that right is decided by war." "God 
will see to it," said Treitschke, Professor of Modern His- 
tory in the University of Berlin, "that war always recurs 



Causes of the World War 233 

as a drastic medicine for the human race." He taught 
too that the leadership of the Teuton was a part of the 
divine order, and that Providence was leading his coun- 
trymen straight on to a conflict with the British. The 
combat would issue, he believed, in the triumph of Ger- 
man culture, "the realization of the German world-vision 
in all the phases and departments of human life and en- 
ergy; in religion, poetry, science, art, politics, and social 
endeavor," the triumph of "truth instead of falsehood in 
the deepest and gravest preoccupations of the human 
mind; German sincerity instead of British hypocrisy." ' 
But when the looked-for war with England should come 
the Germans hoped to have it with Great Britain alone — 
the German army and navy against the British army and 
navy — and not as it turned out to be Germany against 
well-nigh the whole of Europe and America. They were 
not expecting the Canadians, Australians, Irish and In- 
dians to muster as they did to England's aid. They 
planned to whip France and Russia first and were bitterly 
disappointed when England interfered. They asserted, 
though falsely, that England acted treacherously toward 
Germany, that at the first she talked peace, but all along 
really planned war, that she only waited until Germany's 
enemies were numerous and strong enough to make, as she 
felt, certain Germany's defeat, and then, in keeping with 
her habit, added her mighty weight of hostility with the 
hope of utterly crushing Germany. The bitterness of 
their hatred was reflected in sermon and hymn.* 

* "You will we hate with a lasting hate, 
We will never forego our hate, 
Hate by water and hate by land, 
Hate of the head and hate of the hand, 
Hate of the hammer and hate of the crown 
Hate of seventy millions, choking down, 
We love as one, we hate as one, 

We have one foe and one alone " 

ENGLAND l a 



234 England's Progress 

But the responsibility of the 19 14 outbreak can- 
not be laid at the door of England. Several things 
so attest: The unpreparedness of her army and the facts 
— that her Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Sir Edward 
Grey, urged Servia to give Austria the fullest satisfaction 
in case investigation showed Servian officers involved in 
the Sarajevo crime so as to prevent an Austrian attack 
that would lead to Russia's coming in to support Servia; 
that he proposed that Germany, France, Italy and Great 
Britain hold a conference to find a way out of the trouble 
but Germany would not agree to this method of media- 
tion, being unwilling to force Austria into a settlement 
by arbitration; that he tried to restrain Russia's mobili- 
zation in the interest of Servia ; that he held off support 
to Russia and France after they began war ; and that he 
labored for peace until the neutrality of Belgium was 
violated, an aggressive act on Germany's part that was 
contrary to her treaty obligations and that threatened 
England's life. The German Ambassador to London, 
Prince Lichnowsky declared, "We encouraged the Aus- 
trian Foreign Minister to attack Servia although Ger- 
man interests were not involved. We rejected the British 
proposals of mediation — although Servia had accepted 
almost the whole of the ultimatum. We sent an ulti- 
matum to Petrograd merely because of the Russian mobi- 
lization, . . . and we declared war on Russia although 
the Czar pledged his word that he would not order a 
man to march as long as negotiations were pending. In 
view of the above facts it is no wonder that the whole 
of the civilized world, outside Germany, places the entire 
responsibility of the World War upon our shoulders. 
The Teutons challenging England's sea supremacy met 
men determined and unafraid." 



Causes of the World War 235 

"Behold," they cry, "she is grown soft and strength- 
less, 

All her proud memories changed to fear and fret." 

Say, thou, who hast watched through ages that are length- 
less 

Whom have I feared, and when did I forget? 

What sons of mine have shunned thy whorls and races? 
Have I not reared for thee time and again, 
And bid go forth to share thy fierce embraces, 
Sea-ducks, sea-wolves, sea-rovers, and sea-men! 

Wherefore, O Sea, I standing thus before thee, 
Stretch forth my hands unto thy surge and say: 
"When they come forth to seek this empire o'er thee, 
And I go forth to meet them — on that day 

God grant to us the old Armada weather, 

The winds that rip, the heavens that stoop and lour — 

Not till the Sea and England sink together, 

Shall they be masters! Let them boast that hour!' 3 

REFERENCES 

1. Cramb: England and Germany, p. 123. 

2. Ernest Lissauer: Chant of Hate against England. 
3. R. E. Vernede: England to the Sea. 



CHAPTER XVII 

ENGLAND'S ENTRANCE INTO AND SHARE 

IN THE GREAT WAR 

ASQUITH 1914-1916, LLOYD GEORGE, 

1916-1921 

On June 28, 19 14, Archduke Ferdinand and his wife 
were assassinated at Sarajevo, the Capital of Bosnia. On 
July 23, 19 14, the Austrian Government, after investi- 
gating the circumstances of the murder, sent to the Ser- 
vian Government a document declaring "that the murder 
was conceived at Belgrade, that the murderers received 
the arms and bombs with which they were equipped from 
Servian officers and that the transportation of the crimi- 
nals and their arms to Bosnia was arranged and carried 
out by leading Servian frontier officials." Ten demands 
were made of the Servian Government, a reply to which 
would be expected within forty-eight hours. So dicta- 
torial was the tone of this state communication, so brief 
was the time allowed for respecting its requirements, and 
so extreme were its demands, it appeared as an ulti- 
matum to be almost a declaration of war. On July 24, 
Servia in conjunction with Russia asked Austria for an 
extension of time for making answer but this request 
was denied. In her reply of July 25, made ten minutes 
before the time limit expired, Servia consented to all the 
conditions and apologies demanded except the specific 
requirement that Austrian officials should be allowed to 
participate in the investigation of the crime the Servian 

236 



England's Entrance into the Great War 237 

Government was to conduct on Servian soil; a demand 
that a nation could hardly allow without injury to its 
independence and dignity. "The Servian reply," said 
Sir Edward Grey, "involved the greatest humiliation to 
Servia that I have ever seen a country undergo." But 
it did not appease Austria. On the 27th the Austrian 
Government announced that Servia's reply was "filled 
with the spirit of dishonesty" and that the Servian Gov- 
ernment was not trying to put an end to intrigues against 
the Austria-Hungarian monarchy. This hostile state- 
ment aroused Russia whose Government at once notified 
Austria (July 27th) that it would oppose any invasion of 
Servia's territory by Austria. Immediately Germany 
was heard from. In a semi-official statement it made ob- 
jection to any outside power interfering in the Austria- 
Servian quarrel. It was really backing Austria. The 
British Foreign Secretary proposed that an attempt be 
made to find a way out of the entanglement through the 
mediation of a Conference of Ambassadors to be held 
in London, representing France, Italy, Germany and Eng- 
land. The proposal was welcomed by Italy and France 
but was declined by both Germany and Austria. The lat- 
ter country would brook, no delay and forthwith issued 
(July 28th) its declaration of war. This at once started 
the mobilization of the Russian army, the Czar order- 
ing by an imperial ukase all reservists to the colors July 
29th. The next day Germany sent to the Russian Gov- 
ernment a demand to stop its mobilization, and stated 
that a reply to its order was expected within twenty-four 
hours. Germany's threat brought from England forth- 
with (July 30th) the significant notification that in case 
a general conflict should occur Great Britain "could not 
stand aloof and see the balance of power in Europe de- 



238 England's Progress 

stroyed." Russia paid no attention to Germany's ulti- 
matum, but continued the rapid mobilization of her army. 
Germany then issued its declaration of war, August 1st, 
provoking thereby immediately the general mobilization 
order of France, Russia's ally. Germany counted on 
England's keeping out of the conflict. England was asked 
to remain neutral on the condition that Germany would 
promise not to attack the northern or western coasts of 
France nor to molest the maritime commerce of France; 
but to this England would not agree. Nor would Eng- 
land consent to Germany's entering with her army Bel- 
gian territory in order to get at France. The neutrality 
of Belgium had been guaranteed by the Great Powers, 
Germany included, by three treaties, the first made in 
1 83 1, the second in 1839 and the third in 1870. Eng- 
land's consent to the passage was vainly sought by the 
pledge that Germany would indemnify Belgium after the 
war for all losses and would "safeguard the integrity and 
sovereignty of Belgium." The formal assurance was 
given that even in case of armed conflict with Belgium 
Germany would under no pretext whatever annex Bel- 
gian territory. But Germany decided to attack France 
through Belgium, notwithstanding treaty obligations. 
August 3rd, the German Government sent to Belgium its 
ultimatum. This led the Belgian and French Govern- 
ments at once to declare, martial law and King Albert of 
Belgium to telegraph King George of England for diplo- 
matic intervention to safeguard the integrity of Belgium. 
The next day came an ultimatum from England to Ger- 
many demanding that a promise to respect Belgium's 
neutrality should be given by 12 o'clock that night. The 
promise was not given and England forthwith issued its 
declaration of war against Germany August 4th. The 



England's Entrance into the Great War 239 

German army then crossed the border and opened fire 
on Belgian forts. Germany's attack on Liege, Belgium, 
August 5th, soon "turned all Europe into an armed 
camp." President Wilson's offer of the good offices of 
the United States to effect a peaceful settlement availed 
nothing. August 6th Austria-Hungary declared war on 
Russia; August 8th Portugal took Great Britain's side; 
August 9th Servia declared war against Germany; Au- 
gust 10th France declared war on Austria; and August 
13th Austria and Great Britain each declared war on the 
other. On August 7th the German Government sought 
to win Italy as the third member of the Triple Alliance to 
the support of Austria and Germany, but Italy held firm 
to her neutrality claiming that she was not bound by that 
Alliance in this instance since Germany and Austria were 
engaged in an aggressive, not defensive, war. In May, 
19 1 5, Italy took the side of the Allies. A few weeks 
after the opening of hostilities Japan came to England's 
aid in keeping with the terms of the Anglo-Japanese 
treaty of 1905. Turkey and Bulgaria sided later with 
Germany and Austria. 

For four years (1914-1918) warfare the fiercest and 
on the most gigantic scale was waged involving in some 
way nearly all the nations of the globe. Against the 
four nations, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and 
Bulgaria, or against some one of the four war was waged 
by twenty-six nations. Five more nations, Peru, Bolivia, 
Santo Domingo and Uruguay, severed diplomatic rela- 
tions with some member of the German Alliance. Only 
fifteen of the nations of the earth, and these minor ones, 
maintained their neutrality, namely Switzerland, Persia, 
Sweden, Norway, Spain, Netherlands, Paraguay, Salva- 
dor, Colombia, Chile, Denmark, Abyssinia, Argentina, 



240 England's Progress 

Mexico, and Venezuela; and these all felt the evil effects 
of the war in various vexing restrictions on their com- 
merce and life. The total casualties of the war were fully 
40,000,000 not counting the victims of massacre, de- 
portation, famine and epidemics though such losses are in 
large degree by-products of the war. In the conflict, there 
were over 7,600,000 killed, over 6,000,000 permanently 
disabled and over 12,500,000 less severely wounded. 
More persons were killed and maimed in this one war 
probably than in all the battles of mediaeval and modern 
history. About 60,000,000 men were in arms, the Cen- 
tral Powers furnishing over 19,500,000, the Allied and 
Associated Powers over 39,600,000. Of the 60,000,- 
000 one-eighth were killed and one-tenth were made 
human wrecks. Thousands upon thousands of women, 
children and decrepit old men were made dependent, 
hungry and homeless ; billions of dollars' worth of prop- 
erty were ruthlessly destroyed; costly cruisers and hun- 
dreds of merchant vessels with their precious cargoes were 
sent to the bottom of the sea ; rich cities were pillaged and 
burnt; and majestic cathedrals with their precious mas- 
terpieces of art and libraries with their treasured orig- 
inal manuscripts and rare volumes were bombarded into 
heaps of ruin. Using siege guns, torpedo boats, subma- 
rines, Zeppelins, airships, dum dum bullets, turpinine, 
shells that bursting scatter molten metal and poisonous 
gases, bombs and arrows dropped from balloons and 
other air craft, the combatants fought in air and water, 
above and under the earth. The passions of peoples were 
stirred as never before. The money cost of the war was 
over $186,300,000,000. At times the daily cost of sup- 
porting the armies was $60,000,000. 

The navy excepted, England was unprepared on enter- 






England's Entrance into the Great War 241 

ing the war. The appeals of Lord Roberts in 19 13 for 
universal military service as a defence against the threat- 
ening militarism of Germany fell on deaf ears. Labor 
was against the plan and political parties disfavored the 
diversion of funds from the navy to the army that such 
a plan involved. Compulsory service was denounced by 
the War Minister "as a political and military disaster." 
The country was satisfied with its voluntary Territorial 
Force for Home defence of 263,000. Public sentiment 
was divided as to England's duty when the conflict started 
on the continent. Leading Liberals and Radicals and such 
journals as the Daily News vigorously advocated neu- 
trality. Lord Morley and Mr. Burns, Cabinet members, 
resigned when England entered the war. About the 
country too were pacifists, conscientious objectors and 
non-militant socialists of varied degree. But the great 
bulk of the people felt that Russia and France should be 
supported by England. The great majority of the La- 
borites and Liberals, the Unionists, the Ulsterites and 
Irish Nationalists all backed the Government in its dec- 
laration of war. As the fight progressed, and the atro- 
cious, brutal nature of German warfare, as conducted in 
Belgium, became known, and the immensity of Ger- 
many's military preparation and plans were revealed, all 
classes and parties saw that England was in the right, 
sank their differences, postponed their political disputes 
and presented a solid front to the foe. "Britain would 
not sheathe the sword," said Premier Asquith, "until 
Belgium had recovered all and more than all that she had 
sacrificed, until France was adequately secured against 
the menace of aggression, until the rights of the smaller 
nationalities were placed on an unassailable foundation, 
until the military dominion of Prussia was fully and 



242 England's Progress 

finally destroyed." "We are fighting for a worthy pur- 
pose," declared King George, "for treaty obligations 
. . . for the protection of the public law of Europe." 
"Duty," "Patriotism," "Sacrifice" became the national 
watchwords, and so devoted became popular spirit that 
universal conscription was cheerfully supported. 

Energetic conduct of the war necessitated Cabinet 
changes. Premier Asquith formed a Coalition Ministry, 
bringing in eight Unionists and one Laborite in his Cabi- 
net of twenty-two, set up also a special War-Committee 
of six ministers of which he was chairman and added 
a half hundred other committees in charge of various war 
matters. Lloyd George, the Chancellor of the Excheq- 
uer was transferred to the new department, Ministry of 
Munitions, and becoming dissatisfied with Asquith's dila- 
tory "wait and see" policy and seeing the necessity of" 
speeding up the military preparations if the war was 
to be won he dared to propose a radical change in or- 
ganization. He demanded that absolute control of the 
conduct of the war should be put into the hands of a 
committee of four of which he was a member which 
should have daily sessions. Mr. Asquith was to be only 
"an advisory and consultative member." As the Prime 
Minister would not agree to thus "efface himself" Lloyd 
George resigned December 5, 19 16, and as the Premier 
was conscious that he could not carry on the war without 
this Minister of Munitions he resigned. The King sent 
for the Unionist leader, Mr. Bonar Law, but as Mr. As- 
quith refused to cooperate with him as Chief and he 
knew the hour and nation demanded the Welsh states- 
man he stood aside and the commission went to Lloyd 
George. 

Wonderful the career of this British Chieftain. He 



England's Entrance into the Great War 243 

was born in Manchester, January 17, 1863, his father a 
school teacher sprung from the farming people of South 
Wales. David at the age of three witnessed the sale at 
auction of his widowed mother's household effects. The 
widow and her two children were to have their home now 
with her brother, Richard Lloyd, a shoemaker and a 
Non-Conformist at Llanystumdy, a village of North 
Wales. The uncle instructed the boy, struggling himself 
over the elements of French and Latin that he might 
teach the apt pupil. He spent his year's savings to give 
him a legal education. When at twenty-one David had 
passed his examinations and was now a solicitor he had 
not three guineas with which to buy the solicitor's official 
robe. He quickly earned it at desk work. Courage, 
ambition and vision belong to this man. As a boy of 
twelve he defied the teacher and minister who tried to 
make him say the creed in church. When the Rector 
refused permission to bury an old Non-Conformist in 
the church yard by the side of his daughter's grave, the 
young solicitor counseled his clients to tear down the 
railings, go in and inter the remains by force if necessary. 
The case having been taken to court and appealed until 
it reached the final tribunal, the decision of the Lord 
Chief Justice declared the young solicitor right in law. 
Interesting this abstract from his diary when at the age 
of seventeen on a trip to London he saw for the first time 
the House of Commons: "Went to Houses of Parlia- 
ment. Very much disappointed with them. ... I will 
say I eyed the assembly in the spirit in which William 
the Conqueror eyed England on his visit to Edward the 
Confessor — as the reign of his future domain. O 
Vanity!" Before thirty he was a member of this body, 
at forty he was a Cabinet Minister, at forty-five he be- 



244 England's Progress 

came Chancellor of the Exchequer and at fifty-five Prime 
Minister. 

Whether as Minister of Munitions or as Chief of the 
government Lloyd George ever speeded up the war ma- 
chinery, declaring "unless we quicken our movement, 
damnation will fall on the sacred cause for which so 
much gallant blood has flowed." He created his War 
Cabinet of five, composed of himself a Liberal, and of 
three Unionists and one Laborite. General Smuts of 
South Africa was later admitted to this inner council. 
The Unionist chief, Bonar Law, was made Chancellor of 
the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons. 
New departments for control of shipping, of food, la- 
bor, pensioning, enforcement of the blockade, public 
service and the like were multiplied until the ministry 
numbered eighty-eight. New administrative committees 
with special activities were set up by the hundreds. By 
several new Military Service Bills, compulsion to serve 
was imposed eventually on all men physically fit and 
not exempted on account of occupation in essential indus- 
tries from eighteen to fifty years of age. Railroads 
canals, mines, ship yards and munition factories were 
taken over by the government and regulation of prices, 
wages and output in manufactures and of the uses to 
which land may be put in agriculture was undertaken by 
the state. Rationing and price-fixing of food staples fol- 
lowed. In every department of economic life, whether 
production, manufacture, exchange, transportation, 
means of communication or conscription military needs 
were given priority over civilian. Trade Unons were led 
to promise no strikes during the war and their restricted 
rules concerning skilled labor were modfied in the inter- 
ests of increase of products so that by a process of so- 



England's Entrance into the Great War 245 

called "Dilution" unskilled workers and women were 
allowed to do tasks or parts of tasks which had been for- 
bidden them formerly but for which they were after a 
little training quite well fitted. Profits and speculation 
were restricted and the liquor trade was limited by special 
acts. The hours of sale were curtailed, treating and 
credit forbidden and the sale of spirits of excessive 
strengths was prohibited. Temperance was promoted 
too by providing facilities for non-alcoholic refresh- 
ments. By income taxes, graduated super-taxes and 
excess profits taxes as high as 70 per cent and over 
the annual revenues of the government were quad- 
rupled, yet the expenditures were on such a tremendous 
scale the national debt was increased ten-fold. Great 
Britain was taking the fourth part of every well-to-do 
citizen's income and spent some years $300,000,000 on 
the army, $100,000,000 on the navy, and $2,000,- 
000,000 in the work of the munition department. In 
the munition factories were employed soon 2,000,000 
workers, one-tenth of whom were women, many working 
at times twelve hours a day seven days in the week. The 
annual output of munitions of every sort — rifles, car- 
tridges, machine guns, howitzers — multiplied thirty-fold. 
By the early spring of 19 16 an army of 4,000,000 men 
had been raised, and among them were the very flower 
of British youth, sons of the nobility and of the profes- 
sional, literary and University classes. Dotting the coun- 
try were rude recruiting stations and training camps. At 
docks, store houses and depots and railroad sidings were 
armies of laborers busy handling rations, fuel, horses, 
fodder and all sorts of army supplies. Recreation huts, 
cinema theatres, lecture courses, schools for training 
motor drivers, hospitals for animals and for men, can- 



246 England's Progress 

teen stations, religious services, railroads, warehouses 
miles long for the supply bases all had to be provided. 
Drilling, marching and counter-marching everywhere, 
"tramp, tramp, along the land; tramp, tramp, along the 
sea." "An endless spectacle of gun-carriages, naval 
turrets, torpedo-tubes, army railway-carriages, small 
Hotchkiss guns for merchant ships, seem 4 s to be going on 
forever, and in the tool-making shops the output has risen 
from forty-four thousand to three million a year." 1 

England may well be proud of her part in this con- 
flict. She did all that could be done to prevent war; she 
entered to maintain her word of honor, and once in she 
bent all her powers to the task, determined to win. As 
to men, arms and money, Great Britain furnished 8,654,- 
467 men, over a fifth of the mobilized forces of the 
Allied and Associated Powers. Of these, 5,704,416 came 
from Great Britain and Ireland; 640,886 from Canada; 
416,809 from Australia; 220,099 from New Zealand; 
136,070 from South Africa; 1,401,350 from India and 
134,837 from the other colonies. 2 Their casualties all 
told — wounded, missing and killed — were 3,060,616. 
Some 850,000 were killed. The British furnished 
about one-fifth of the money expended. Their war debt 
is about $35,000,000,000, of which roughly speaking a 
fifth was loaned to the Allies. About $750,000,000 was 
loaned to the Dominions. As to the fighting the British 
were in the thick of it from start to finish. While a few 
costly mistakes were made at the first and defeats were 
not uncommon in the earlier engagements none the less 
their naval and military record on the whole was noble 
and superb. 

Unaware of the magnitude of the enemy's forces and 
of the gigantic scale on which warfare was to be con- 



England's Entrance into the Great War 247 

ducted the British were slow in making adequate prepara- 
tions. The six divisions of regulars, 60,000 sent to 
Belgium, were not equal to holding back the horde of 
German soldiers with their cavalry and armored motor 
cars, heavy cannon and siege guns moving on with the 
momentum of an avalanche. After a hot contest at 
Mons (August 23-24, 1914) General French had to 
withdraw. The battle and the six days' retreat back into 
France cost the British 230 officers and 13,413 men. 
Mismanagement by the governmental heads in London 
and lack of men and equipment caused the loss of Ant- 
werp to the Germans and explains why the British failed 
to extend their battle lines northward promptly. The 
Germans hurried to try to win the Channel Ports, Calais 
and Dunkirk and thus cut off England from the most di- 
rect communication with France. The bloody battles of 
Flanders followed (October 17-November 15) and the 
fearful losses at Ypres and along the Yser. The com- 
bined forces of Belgians, French and British under the 
command of General Foch, numbering only 150,000 — 
some of the troops raw and untried with inadequate 
equipment, lacking shells and heavy artillery — success- 
fully withstood the repeated attacks of half a million thor- 
oughly trained German soldiers provided with the finest 
machine guns and cannon. On the coast the Belgians 
checked the enemy's advance by cutting the dikes of the 
Yser and flooding the lowlands. At Ypres the British had 
to fight against terrible odds and were nearly annihilated. 
The German's effort cost them the loss of 150,000 men. 
The Gallipoli Campaign was most disastrous. Turkey 
having taken the side of Germany and Austria, Russia 
was cut off from getting food and war supplies from her 
western Allies. Could the Dardanelles be forced and 



248 England's Progress 

Constantinople taken by the Allies it would end the Pan- 
German dream of control in the Balkans and Asia Minor. 
In February, 191 5, the French and British warships made 
attack, losing two ships and gaining entrance to the 
straits. Another bombardment the next day might have 
succeeded since the Turks' ammunition was about out; 
but those attacking were unaware of the fact: and since 
the rapid current, floating mines, and hidden guns of the 
fortifications were feared, they withdrew. In April the 
British sent an expedition of 200,000 men, mainly Aus- 
tralian and New Zealand forces, to assist in the attack. 
The plan was known to the Germans and a force of 250,- 
000 well-armed Turks under German officers was gath- 
ered for defence. The invaders were landed on the pen- 
insula but the barbed wire entanglements, the steep rocky 
hills, the lack of water, the scorching July heat and the 
resistance of the Turks, along with the submarine at- 
tacks on the supporting gunboats brought the heroic 
effort to naught. 

In December the forces were withdrawn. In this in- 
glorious campaign the toll of British dead was 26,000 
and the disabled and broken in health numbered 89,000. 
Bulgaria judged from the outcome that it was to her in- 
terest to join with the Central Powers. The fact that 
two German cruisers from Messina escaped the British 
patrol in the Mediterranean and got through the Dar- 
danelles to the Black Sea at the opening of conflict was 
of big effect. Had the British pursued and captured them 
possibly Turkey would have been kept from uniting with 
Germany and access to Russia by the Western Powers 
would have been maintained. 

In November, 19 14, occurred a naval disaster at Cor- 
onel off the coast of Chile. Admiral Craddock with four 



England's Entrance into the Great War 249 

armoured vessels of inferior type dared attack Admiral 
von Spee's squadron of five first rate cruisers. In the 
combat Craddock, 1600 men and three ships were lost. 
But on December 6 following the English got vengeance. 
Admiral Sturdee with seven powerful ships was de- 
spatched to engage von Spee. He found the squadron 
near the Falkland Islands and in a running battle sent 
von Spee and four of his ships to the bottom. 

To British arms during this war must be credited not 
a few great achievements. The holding of a good long 
section of that three hundred mile line of entrenchments 
extending from the sea to Switzerland year in and year 
out; the noble five days' struggle in the Second Battle 
of Ypres (April 22, 1915) when the Germans in their 
savage thrust to take Calais, throwing international law 
to the winds in making use of poison gas were blocked 
by the unyielding Canadians though losing one in three 
of their men; the relief of Verdun in the First Battle of 
the Somme (July 1— November 17, 19 16) where the 
soil was mixed with the blood of nearly a million men 
killed or wounded; and where the forces under General 
Haig, though suffering the first day a loss of 50,000, 
steadily fought on and on until they had ousted the Ger- 
mans from their perfected entrenchments and with their 
armored land cruisers the "tanks" put the enemy on the 
defensive and set a new pace in the strife, especially in 
dealing with trenches and barbed wire entanglements; 
the bold taking of Vimy Ridge (April 9, 1917) by the 
Canadians that secured control of a district of Northern 
France rich in coal; the capture of 50,000 prisoners and 
immense stores of munitions in several attacks along 
with the French in the late spring of 19 17 and the break- 
ing through the Hindenburg line at one place; the valor 



250 England's Progress 

displayed in the battle of Picardy (March 21-April 1) 
where the British though outnumbered three to one held 
back the German hosts until, with the arrival of French 
troops, they thwarted the enemy in his plans to capture 
Amiens, reach a highway to Paris and drive a wedge 
between the British and French armies; the barring the 
way to the Channel Ports in the battle fought in Flan- 
ders near the cities of Ypres and Arras when an over- 
whelming force moved forward April 9, 19 18, against the 
British, pressing them on until they had to fight with the 
desperation of an animal at bay; and their heavy blows 
at Montdidier (August 8, 19 18) and smashing of the 
Hindenburg line, a part of the final overwhelming Allied 
offensive launched by General Foch when the French at- 
tacked at Soissons and the Americans took the St. Mihiel 
Salient and cleared the Argonne Forest; the retaking 
after an earlier defeat, of Kut-el-Amara, the capture of 
the City of Bagdad (March 11) and occupation of the 
Euphrates valley which defeated the German Berlin- 
Bagdad railway scheme; the taking of Jaffa, the seaport 
of Jerusalem, and the capture of the Holy City (Decem- 
ber 10) by General Allenby who had to storm the Turk- 
ish positions. In accounting for the collapse of the Ger- 
man defense the stubborn, valorous Briton must be re- 
membered along with the masterful strategist, Foch, the 
fresh American army of 1,500,000, and the spirited 
French. 

Naval battles were few. On August 24, 19 14, oc- 
curred the Battle of Heligoland Bight, when a part of 
the German fleet attacked some British patrol vessels. 
Four fast battleships rushed to the aid of the scout ships 
and succeeded in sinking three cruisers and two destroyers 
of the enemy. On January 24, 19 15, Admiral Beatty in 



England's Entrance into the Great War 251 

the Battle of Dogger Bank sank the Blucher and badly 
battered two other German cruisers that were attempt- 
ing to raid the English coast. On May 31, 19 16, in the 
Battle of Jutland — the one great sea-fight of the war — 
the German fleet handled very roughly Admiral Beatty's 
squadron of light armored cruisers. Admiral Beatty 
stuck to the unequal contest until the British Grand Fleet 
under Admiral Jellicoe arrived. But when Admiral Jel- 
licoe approached near nightfall the German ships man- 
aged to escape in the darkness and mists back to their 
mine-protected bases. The British lost three battle cruis- 
ers and fifteen other vessels. The Germans proclaimed it 
a victory; but since they had failed in their purposes to 
break through the blockade and to destroy England's 
naval superiority, since their losses were fully as great as 
the English losses, since the crews of the German ships 
lost heart for such war and since the next day the British 
vessels were out picking up survivors and courting further 
fighting while the German fleet never dared come out 
of their havens again, the British were actually the vic- 
tors. 

The services of the British Navy in this war cannot 
be overestimated. It kept bottled up the German fleet; 
it hunted down the German raiders preying on commerce; 
it laid the mine fields furnishing coast protection; it main- 
tained the blockade of German ports cutting off food sup- 
plies and needed raw materials; it prevented the home 
return and entrance into the army of many thousands 
of German subjects abroad; it furnished safe convoy for 
transports laden with food, fuel, ammunition, army sup- 
plies and troops along the sea routes from England, the 
Dominions and America to France; it kept its trawlers 
busy in mine sweeping; it overcame in time the destruc- 



252 England's Progress 

tive submarines, being able with depth bombs and other 
inventions to destroy them as fast as they were built; 
and it kept vigil in fair weather and foul, in storm or 
calm, winter's cold or summer's heat, incurring dangers 
from torpedo or hidden mine but seeing to it that the 
enemy did not close the sea lanes of communication. Ter- 
rific were the losses at sea when the unrestricted subma- 
rine warfare was begun in February, 19 17. In a two 
weeks' period 106 vessels were sunk, three-fourths of 
which were ships of over 1600 tons. Over 7,500,000 
tons of merchant shipping was lost by England during 
the war; but the greatest part of the loss was covered by 
building new ships and capturing enemy vessels. 

The Germans would have won the war, so the story 
goes, if the Belgians had not blocked their progress for 
ten days which allowed the French to better prepare and 
to rearrange their line of defence; or if the French had 
lost the First Battle of the Marne; or if the defenders 
of the Channel Ports or of Verdun had yielded; or if 
the Americans had not come to save the day; but whether 
these are true assertions or not one thing cannot be de- 
nied, without the British Navy there could have been no 
victory. 

Great Britain won much from the war. Added to her 
widespread possessions were Palestine, Mesopotamia, 
the Pacific Islands south of the equator formerly held by 
Germany, parts of Kamerun and Togoland, German East 
Africa and German Southwest Africa. Her prestige was 
enhanced. Germany no more than Spain, or Holland, or 
France could challenge successfully her colonial or mari- 
time supremacy. With her Cape to Cairo railway, her 
Suez Canal and her protectorate over Persia she could 
dominate commercial and political policy over the better 



England's Entrance into the Great War 253 

part of Africa and rich portions of Asia. A chief arti- 
ficer of the Versailles Treaty and of the League of Na- 
tions Covenant and the foremost member of the League, 
the nation waxes constantly greater in influence and 
power, directing Europe in the ways of law, justice and 
peace. 

REFERENCES 

1. Mrs. Humphrey Ward : England's Effort, p. 14. 

2. Cross: A Shorter History of England and Great Britain, p. 

832. 



CHAPTER XVIII 

LEGISLATIVE BY-PRODUCTS OF THE WAR 
AND RECENT TENDENCIES 

The Franchise Act of 19 18 added 8,000,000 voters to 
the electorate, including 6,000,000 women. Whereas in 
1832 only 1 in 24 of the population could vote, and in 
1884 1 in 7, now the ratio is 1 in 3. The franchise was 
given to all men over twenty-one with fixed residence or 
place of business for six months and to all women over 
thirty who had already the right to vote in local elections 
by reason of a six months' ownership or tenancy of prop- 
erty or who were the wives of men so qualified. It did 
away with plural voting practically. The law enlarged 
the House of Commons from 670 to 707. England was 
given 492 members, Wales 36, Scotland 74, and Ireland 
105. 

The Act for disestablishing and disendowing the 
Church in Wales, passed in 19 14, went into effect on 
March 31, 1920. Wales was made a separate Arch- 
bishopric. 

The Education Act of 19 18 compelled regular full- 
time attendance at school of all children between the 
ages of five and fourteen. Between the ages of fourteen 
and eighteen part time attendance is required at properly 
organized continuation schools. Employers who engage 
pupils attending continuation schools must release them 
in time to allow for cleaning up, making themselves tidy 
and getting meals. Children under twelve cannot be law- 

254 



Legislative By-Products of the War 255 

fully employed in industry at all, nor may children be- 
tween twelve and the school-leaving age be employed 
after school hours. "They may never work before six 
o'clock in the morning or after eight o'clock at night, or 
for more than two hours on Sunday.' x The expense of 
the educational system was divided about equally be- 
tween the central and local governments. 

In 191 5 a Liquor Control Board was set up which 
limited the sale of drink to a few specified hours each 
day, and which greatly reduced the alcoholic strength 
of beer and other spirituous liquors. 

The voluntary Joint Standing Industrial Councils set 
up in 19 1 7 are not unlike the Trade Boards. They are 
not governmental bodies nor are their decisions enforce- 
able at law. They are permanent bodies of representa- 
tives of both capital and labor within an industry. They 
are composed of representatives of both Employers' As- 
sociations and Trades Unions who meet regularly to dis- 
cuss their differences, remove grievances, beget ameliora- 
tion, arrive at better mutual understanding and forestall 
quarrels and strikes. The Corn Production Act (1917) 
dealt with farmers' profits and farm laborers' wages. It 
guaranteed a minimum price per quarter for wheat and 
for oats payable by the state up until 1922 and it set up 
an Agricultural Wages Board for fixing remuneration 
for farm labor. It fixed "the minimum hours of work 
at fifty-four per week in the summer and forty-eight in 
winter, and provided for a Saturday half-holiday, and for 
overtime rates of pay increased by 25 per cent on the 
legal rate for week days and by 50 per cent for Sun- 
day work." 2 

The war struggle modified radically public sentiment 
and policy as regards the tariff. In 19 17 a government 



256 England's Progress 

committee on commercial and industrial policy, headed by 
a former free trader, recommended " ( 1 ) taking of spe- 
cial steps to stimulate . . . the production of food stuffs 
and raw materials and manufactured articles; (2) the 
adoption of Colonial Preference; and (3) the establish- 
ment of a wider range of customs duties." 3 Protection 
in England today is not so much an economic as a politi- 
cal question. Its purpose is not commercial profit chiefly 
but national self-sufficiency and imperial defense. War 
experiences have put an end possibly for good and all to 
England's free trade policy. In the present era of in- 
creasing international relationships protective duties are 
considered not so much with reference to their effects on 
labor and industry as on State and Empire. 

A new settlement has been attempted for Ireland. Dur- 
ing the war (April, 19 16) Sir Roger Casement and Irish 
radicals supported by Germans and receiving financial 
aid from Irish Americans rose in revolt, unfurled their 
flag over the Dublin Post Office, and proclaimed Patrick 
Pearse "Provisional President of the Irish Republic." 
For several days there was fierce fighting and many were 
killed and wounded in Dublin. Property to the amount 
of 10,000,000 pounds was destroyed. But as the Ger- 
mans failed to send over the arms and munitions and to 
make the attack on the East coast of England, as ex- 
pected, the British poured 40,000 troops into Ireland 
and quickly suppressed the rebellion. Casement was ex- 
ecuted as a traitor, Pearse and six of the leaders were 
shot, and fifty or more imprisoned for life. But the strug- 
gle for independence lived on none the less. Eamon 
de Valera was later elected by the Sinn Feiners (We 
Ourselves) President of the Irish Republic. In the gen- 
eral parliamentary election held in December, 19 18, the 



Legislative By-Products of the War 257 

Sinn Feiners captured 73 of the constituencies while the 
Unionists got 25 and the Nationalists only 7. None of 
the Sinn Feiners took their seats at Westminster but 
assembled in Dublin as the Irish Republican Parliament 
which the majority of the people of Southern Ireland re- 
garded as their lawful government, England's orders to 
the contrary notwithstanding. Supporting the republi- 
cans were labor groups of syndicalistic and socialistic 
thou'ght and members of the Gaelic League who were 
proud of Ireland's ancient literature and long-lived na- 
tionalistic spirit. For a year and more intermittent guer- 
illa warfare went on between the British and Sinn Fein 
forces with much destruction of life and property and 
with cruel reprisals. 

To bring peace Lloyd George first tried to get a basis 
of settlement through a convention held in 19 17 to which 
representatives from all the various Irish parties were 
invited. Sir Horace Plunkett, a man thoroughly ac- 
quainted with Irish affairs and devoted to Ireland's in- 
terest, presided over the Convention, the busy sessions of 
which continued for nine long months (July, 19 17— April, 
19 1 8). But as the Sinn Feiners would not attend at all 
since the question of independence was forbidden to be 
discussed; and the Protestant Ulsterites, who sent dele- 
gates, refused to join in any sort of an all-Ireland Parlia- 
ment little headway was made. The Prime Minister 
then (December, 1920) presented a new Government of 
Ireland Act. Its novel feature was the establishment of 
two bi-cameral parliaments — one in Belfast for the six 
northern counties, and one in Dublin for the rest of Ire- 
land — and of a Council of Ireland composed of a Presi- 
dent, an appointee of the King, and two delegations num- 
bering twenty each from the two Parliaments. Power 



258 England* s Progress 

was given the two Parliaments to substitute, if they should 
later desire so to do, for the Council of Ireland a Parlia- 
ment for the whole of Ireland consisting of one or two 
houses. Executive power in each area remained with the 
King who might exercise it through an appointed Lord 
Lieutenant. Ireland was still to have forty-two repre- 
sentatives in the English Parliament. As to the judici- 
ary, there was to be a separate system of courts for each 
area with one Supreme Court of Appeals for all Ireland. 
Toward Imperial Expenditure Northern Ireland was to 
contribute 44 per cent, Southern Ireland 66 per cent. Re- 
served powers were about the same as those named in 
the Act of 19 14. 

Neither Northern nor Southern Ireland was pleased 
with the proposal and for awhile held aloof. But event- 
ually Ulster with patriotic loyalty accepted the plan and 
set up her government with Sir James Craig as Prime 
Minister. On June 22, 192 1, the King and Queen for- 
mally opened the Ulster Parliament. "I appeal," said 
King George, " to all Irishmen to stretch out the hand of 
forbearance and conciliation, to forgive and to forget." 
With contrary Southern Ireland Lloyd George labored 
with infinite patience and persistence, holding parleys 
with de Valera and other representatives and negotiat- 
ing meanwhile with Sir James Craig in an effort to ac- 
commodate differences. For months no progress seemed 
making but finally it was announced at 2 130 A.M. De- 
cember 6 that an agreement by treaty had been reached 
to declare Ireland a Free State within the British Em- 
pire, like the Dominion of Canada, Ulster being given 
the option to join in the new state or to keep her separate 
status. Michael Collins was made Provisional Presi- 
dent of the Free State, though he did not have the sup- 



Legislative By-Products of the War 259 

port of de Valera and his many disciples who still seemed 
ready to fight for an independent republic. Should civil 
war occur between the Free State and the Republicans of 
Southern Ireland it will be brutal and bloody. 

The Government of India Act of 19 18 is liberal in 
tendency. The declared policy of Parliament is to pro- 
vide "the increasing association of Indians in every 
branch of the administration, and the gradual develop- 
ment of self-governing institutions with a view to the pro- 
gressive realization of responsible government in India 
as an integral part of the British Empire.' In March, 
192 1, the Egyptian Government was invited to discuss 
with the British Government the possible substitution of 
the present English protectorate by a new political rela- 
tionship which while securing Great Britain's interests 
would better satisfy Egypt's desire for a greater auton- 
omy. It may result that Egypt's relation to England 
will be like that of Cuba to the United States. 

Constructive imperialism has been strengthened by the 
war. Previous to 19 14 this subject was quite prominent 
in political writings and discussions. The increasing cost 
of defending the widely scattered dominions and depen- 
dencies of the vast Empire led some to the belief that 
the component parts of the Empire should be represented 
in an Imperial Council of State, and that these parts 
should have a voice in laying taxes for imperial purposes 
and should support the Imperial Exchequer. The Colo- 
nies were naturally averse to paying into the British Na- 
tional treasury large contributions for Imperial defence, 
over the spending of which they had no control. No 
workable imperial government could be set up unless both 
Great Britain and the Colonies should place imperial 
above local interests. An "Imperial defence based upon 



260 England* s Progress 

Imperial) means could be organized only if the nucleus of 
an Imperial Cabinet, with an Imperial Navy Board, an 
Imperial Exchequer, and an Imperial Senate, represent- 
ing the whole Empire, be created." 4 Up to 19 17 only 
Imperial Conferences had been held, but in March of that 
year under pressure of war was formed the Imperial War 
Cabinet, composed of the Prime Ministers of Canada, 
South Africa, New Zealand and Newfoundland, and the 
Secretary of State for India, the British Prime Minister 
and members of his War Cabinet. The Prime Ministers 
met as equals, and each nation thus had its share in di- 
recting governmental policy. In 19 18 was held a sec- 
ond session of the Imperial War Cabinet, and it was de- 
cided that for the future "the Prime Ministers as members 
of this Cabinet should have the right of direct communi- 
cation with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 
and each dominion Prime Minister was given the right 
to nominate a Cabinet Minister, one residing in or visit- 
ing London, to represent him at meetings of the Cabinet 
held between the plenary sessions. In 192 1 was assem- 
bled in London an important conference between the 
Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, South African 
Union, Australian Commonwealth, Canada and New Zea- 
land along with delegates from India to formulate a 
common foreign policy. It was not without effect on the 
non-renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Some day 
England may yet evolve an imperial mechanism of rule. 
Who can say that the Colonial Conferences of the future 
will not be invested with executive functions, and that at 
some day there may not be assembled in London a true 
Imperial Parliament in which representatives from the 
home land and colonies shall legislate on equal footing 
side by side? 



Legislative By-Products of the War 261 

With the coming of peace, the organization of govern- 
ment had of course to be put back again on its pre-war 
basis. The Cabinet has been reduced to twenty members. 
Two new ministries have been created, the Ministry of 
Health and the Ministry of Transport. Some needed 
social legislation, such as the Housing Bill, has been en- 
acted, and the big strikes of the railway men, miners and 
transport workers — "The Triple Alliance" — have been 
successfully handled. 

Partly as results of the Great War and partly as re- 
sults of forces active for some decades past, several 
new conditions and tendencies are found in the life of 
Great Britain today. Democracy has come to full expres- 
sion, adult suffrage including women being had. Socially 
the classes have been led to understand and appreciate 
better one another. They have been forced to get to- 
gether and do a common task, to fight a foe threatening 
their very life. The rich and well-placed are more ready 
than formerly to consider the problems and demands of 
the less fortunate. Capital and labor are recognizing 
the sanity and necessity of substituting frank counsel and 
loyal cooperation for suspicion and conflict. "Many 
employers have come to know that in some form or other 
Labor must be made a partner, not a nominal partner 
in the patronizing way which means five or ten pounds 
at Christmas should the proprietor have made a million 
during the year, but a real partnership on which above 
a certain minimum a man's earnings expand with the pros- 
perity of the business. Busy minds are working on 
schemes and some of them will come to fruition before 
long." B 

Political parties are experiencing change. The old 
Conservatives are becoming more liberal, and the old Lib- 



262 England's Progress 

erals more radical and socialistic. Labor has placed 
its representatives in the Cabinet and elected a third 
of the members of the House of Commons. This augurs 
constitutional change. The House of Commons may ac- 
quire still greater weight in England's system of govern- 
ment than it has today. Democracy may some day make 
the House of Lords an elective body. The extension of 
the franchise has been accompanied by a system of uni- 
versal compulsory education. Though the working men 
are gaining influence in politics and government, Eng- 
land will have no soviet system of rule, no dictatorship 
of the proletariat. National welfare, not pampering la- 
bor, will be the end in legislation. Equality before the 
law, not preferential treatment of a class, is the British 
laborer's demand. Trade unionism will experience modi- 
fications. Arbitrary laws that have lessened national 
production, such as exclusion of willing and capable 
workmen, limiting the number of apprentices, prohibiting 
women in certain occupations, unreasonable limitation of 
hours and output will eventually be set aside. The desire 
and purpose to aid by law as far as it is possible to do so 
in giving to every one who will work a decent living, in- 
cluding a little leisure for self-culture, carries with it the 
demand that the greatest possible production must be 
had in every line. All must do their best in the interest 
of national welfare in peace times as all did their best 
in order to win the war. The whole community suffers 
as does individual character when men trifle at their 
tasks. While laissez faire has been giving way to col- 
lectivism and state interference in some fields, the system 
of Government control in industry has not been espe- 
cially strengthened by war experiences. The people have 
become tired of "bureaucracy." 



Legislative By-Products of the War 263 

Woman's influence in politics will probably strengthen 
the temperance cause through more restrictive interfer- 
ence with the sale of intoxicants. The fact that the war 
has left England with a million more women than men 
is significant. The first woman to win a seat in the House 
of Commons was Lady Astor, formerly Miss Nannie 
Langhorne, an American girl born and reared in the State 
of Virginia. 

England is full of vision to make this world a better 
world. England stands at the head of a group of free 
commonwealths. Justice, peace and economic prosperity 
she desires and labors for in her dependencies and pro- 
tectorates. National animosities and racial jealousies 
she would lessen. Law, self-government, toleration be- 
long to her genius. She is not afraid of responsibilities 
and dares to assume mandates. She has entered the 
League of Nations with high resolve and having put her 
hand to the plough she does not look backward as she 
leads onward to a better international order. 

REFERENCES 

1. Turbeville & Howe: Great Britain in the Latest Age, p. 284. 

2. Turbeville & Howe: Great Britain in the Latest Age, p. 128. 

3. Encyclopaedia Britannica: Vol. 30, p. 1016. 

4. J. E. Barker : Great and Greater Britain, p. 39. 

5. Dilnot: England after the War, p. 321. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Alden : Democratic England. 

Barker: Great and Greater Britain. 

Bassett: History of United States. 

Bright: Constitutional Monarchy 1689-1837. 

Growth of Democracy 1 837-1 880. 
Burrows: History of Foreign Policy of Great Britain. 
Cheney: Social and Industrial History of England. 
Corbett: Naval Operations. 
Cramb : England and Germany. 
Cross: England and Great Britain. 
Dicey: Law and Public Opinion in England. 
Dilnot: England After the War. 

Lloyd George. 
Dixon : The British Navy at War. 
Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Vols. 16, 22, and 30. 
Edwards : Notes on British History, Part IV. 
Fitchett: Wesley and his Century. 
Gooch : History of Our Own Times. 
Harrison : International Policy. 
Hayes: British Social Politics. 

A Short History of the Great War. 
Hazen: Europe Since 181 5. 
Holt & Chilton: European History 1862-1914. 
Hunt & Pool: Political History of England, Vols. 10, II. 
Hughes: Britain and Great Britain in the Nineteenth Century. 
Kellogg & Gleason : British Labour and the War. 
Lang: Story of General Gordon. 
Lecky: England in the Eighteenth Century, 7 vols. 
Low and Sanders: Political History of England, edited by Hunt 

& Pool, Vol. 12, 1837-1901. 
Mathieson: England in Transition 1 789-1 832. 
McCarthy: Epoch of Reform. 

Modern England before the Reform Bill. 
Montague: Elements of English Constitution. 
Molesworth: History of England, Vols. 1 and 2. 
Moran: The English Government. 

265 



266 England' s Progress 

Morley : Life of Gladstone, Vols. I and 2. 
Oman: England in the Nineteenth Century. 
Paul : History of Modern England, 5 vols. 

History of Reform. 

Life of Gladstone. 
Peel: The Future of England. 
Pollard : British Empire. 
Rees: Current Political Problems. 

A Social and Industrial History of England, 181 5- 191 8. 
Robinson & Beard: Outlines of European History. 
Roundell, Earl of Shelborne: A Defense of the Church of Eng- 
land Against Disestablishment. 
Seignobos: Political History of Europe Since 18 14. 
Slater: The Making of Modern England. 
Sydney: England and the English in the Eighteenth Century, 2 

vols. 
Terry: History of England. 

Turbeville & Howe : Great Britain in the Latest Age. 
Turner: Europe 1 789-1920. 

Walford : Life and Political Career of Earl of Beaconsfield. 
Walpole: History of England Since 181 5, 6 vols. 
Ward: England's Effort. 
Wheatley: Hogarth's London. 



INDEX 



Aberdeen, Lord, 90 
Afghanistan, 168, 190 
Agricultural Rating Act (1896), 

183 
Agricultural Wages Board (1917), 

255 
Alabama affair, 95 
Alaska Boundary Controversy 

(1867), 188 
Albert, King of Belgium, 238 
Amiens, battle of, 250 
Anti-Corn Law League, 79 
Arabi Pasha, 150 
Argonne Forest, battle of, 250 
Armenian massacres (1896), 185 
Army reorganization (1871), 128 
Arras, battle of, 250 
Asquith, 200, 242 
Astor, Lady, 263 
Australian Commonwealth Act 

(1900), 185 
Austro-Prussian War (1866), no 

Balfour, 195 

Belgium: separation from Holland, 

86; neutrality, 238; war, 238 
Bentham, Jeremy, 55, 66 
Boers, 146 
Boxers (1900), 190 
Bright, John, 70 

Budget, Lloyd George's (1909), 208 
Bulgaria, 239 
Burke, 23 
Buxton, Thomas F., 66 

Cambridge University: religious 

tests removed, 127 
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry, 

200, 202 
Canadian Confederation, 112 
Canadian Fishery Rights, 188 
Candia, 186 
Canning, 50, 51 



267 



Cardwell: army reform, 129, 130 
Carnarvon, Lord, 161, 162 
Carson, Sir Edward, 216 
Casement, Sir Roger, 256 
Castle re agh, 35, 49, 51 
"Cat and Mouse" Act, 221 
Catholic Association, 52 
Catholic Emancipation, 52 
Cato Street affair, 46 
Cavendish, Lord Frederick, 159 
Cawdor Memorandum (1905), 196 
Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary, 

184, 196 
Chartism, 82 
Christina, Regent, 87 
Clarkson, Thomas, 66 
Cobbett, William, 43 
Cobden, 70, 79 
Collins, Michael, 258 
Combination Acts (1800), 36 
Commons Law Amendment Act 

(1893), 207 
Commutation of tithes (1836), 83 
Congress of Berlin (1878), 142 
Congress of Vienna, 32, 33 
Corn Production Act (1917), 255 
Coronel disaster, 248 
County and District Councils Act 

(1888), 171 
Craig, Sir James, 258 
Crimean War (1855), 89-92 
Crimes Act (1887), 172 

Derby insurrection, 46 

Derby, Lord, 104 

Development Act (1909), 205 

"Dick Pigott," 175 

Disraeli, Benjamin, 104-107, III, 

"3> "4. *32> 134. 136-139. 14*- 

i43» 150 
Disraeli's Franchise Resolutions 

(1867), 107 
Dogger Bank, battle of, 251 
Don Carlos, 87 



268 



Index 



Don Miguel, 87 
Don Pedro, 87 

Ecclesiastical Titles Act, repealed, 
130 

Educational Act (1870), 123, 126; 
(1906), 207; (1918), 254 

Edward VII, 211 

Eighteenth Century England: char- 
acteristics: intellectual, 9; mili- 
tary, n, 12; social, 13; moral 
and religious, 14-19 

Eldon, Lord, 35, 49 

Emancipation Act, 67 

England's advances in Eighteenth 
Century, 20, 21 

Eyre, Governor, 98 

Factory and Workshop Bill (1891), 

172 
Factory conditions and legislations, 

68-71, 84 
Falkland Islands, battle of, 249 
Fashoda incident (1898), 192 
Fenianism, 98-100 
Ferdinand, Arch-Duke, assassi- 
nated, 224 
Forster, 123, 124 
Franchise Act (1918), 254 
Free Education Act (1891), 1 
French Mexican affair, in 
French Revolution: opinion in Eng- 
land, 22, 23, 25; warfare, 25; 
Peace of Amiens, 26; Napoleon's 
hostility, 28; Waterloo, 31; 
Treaty of Vienna, 32; cost of 
war, 39; results of war, 40-42 

Gallipoli, campaign of, 247 

George IV, 34 

George V, 211 

Gilbert Act (1782), 73 

Gladstone, William Ewart, 70, 101- 

103, 114, 115, 117, 120-122, 127, 

128, 131-134, I44> 145. 148, 149. 

151, 152, 156-160, 162-164, 178) 

182, 186 
Gordon, General Charles, 152-155, 

192 
Goschen, 170, 183 
Government of India Act (1918), 

259 



Government of Ireland Act (1920), 

257 
Government of London Act (1899), 

183 
Grey, Charles Earl, 54, 59, 62, 85 
Grey, Sir Edward, 237 

Harrington, Lord, 167, 183 
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty (1901), 

188 
Heligoland Bight, battle of, 250 
Herat, evacuation of, 90 
Hicks, General, 153 
Holy Alliance, 50 
Holy City, capture of, 250 
Home Rule Bills: (1886), 164, 165; 

(1893), 178; Asquith!s__ti£i2)» 

214 „~ 
Housing Act (1909), 205 
Huskisson, 50 

Illiteracy (1869), 124, 126 

Imperial War Cabinet (1917), 260 

Ireland, Free State, 258 

Irish Church, disestablished, 115 

Irish Land Bills, Gladstone's 
(1875), 120, 121; (1881) and 
(1886), 122; Salisbury Act 
(1891), 122 

Irish University Bill (1873), 131 

Isabella, Queen, 87 

Jaffa, capture of, 250 
Jamaica, 97 
Judicature Act, 131 
Jutland, battle of, 251 

Kultur, 229 

Kut-el-Amara, capture of, 250 

Laborers' Dwelling Bill, 136 
Labor Exchanges Act (1909), 204 
Land Purchase Bill, Balfour's 

(1890), 174 
Law, Bonar, 242, 244 
League of Nations' Covenant, 253 
License Bill (1908), 207, 131 
Liege, 239 

Liquor Control Board (1915), 255 
Lloyd George, 200, 208, 209, 242- 

244, 257 
Local Health Board, 84 



Index 



269 



London Convention (1884), 150 
Louis Philippe, 55, 86 

Macaulay, Zachary, 67 
Majuba Hill, 149 
Mason and Slidell, 95 
Maximilian, Emperor, 111 
McCarthy, Justin, 177 
Menshikov, Prince, 89 
Mohammed Ahmed, 152 
Mons, battle of, 247 
Montdidier, battle of, 250 
Morocco, 228 

Municipal Corporation Act (1835), 
75-78 

Napoleon, 26, 30, 31 

Napoleon, Louis, 89 

National Insurance Act (1911), 204 

Nelson, 29 

Nightingale, Florence, 91 

O'Connell, Daniel, 52, 54 
O'Connor, 82 

Old Age Pensions Act (1908), 203 
O'Shea, Captain, 176 
Outram, Sir James, 92 
Oxford University, religious tests 
removed, 127 

Paine, 22 

Palmerston, Lord, 85-89, 92, 93, 

95, 100 
Pan-Germanists, 226, 230-233 
Paris revolution (1830), 55 
Parliamentary Bill, Asquith's 

(1911), 212 
Parliament unreformed, 56-59 
Parnell, Charles Stewart, 143, 157, 

158, 173, 175, 176 , 
"Parnellism and Crime," 174 
Peace of Amiens, 26 
Peel, Sir Robert, 50, 80, 81 
Pendjeh incident, 156 
Penny Postal System, 83 
Peterloo incident, 47 
Picardy, battle of, 250 
Pitt, 25 

Plunkett, Sir Horace, 257 
Poor Law Reform, 72-75 
Port Arthur, 189 
Pretoria Convention (1881), 149 
Prevention of Cruelty to Children 

Act (1889), 172 



Queen's Jubilee, 170 

Redistribution of Seats Act (1885), 

H5 
Reform Act (1884), 145 
Reform Bill (1831), 59-64 
Repeal of Corn Laws, 79-82 
Roberts, Lord, 241 
Royal Titles Bill (1876), 137 
Rosebery, Lord, 180, 182 
Russell's Franchise Bill, 103 
Russell, Lord John, 61, 77, 80, 81, 

85,. 89, 97 
Russia, war declared on Turkey 
(1877), 140 

Salisbury, Lord, 161, 167-169, 178, 
183, 186, 187, 194 

San Juan Island, 133 

Sarajevo, 236 

Servia, 236, 237 

Shaftesbury, Lord, 70, 72 

Sierra Leone Colony, 67 

Sinn-Feiners, 256, 257 

Six Acts (1891), 36 

Slavery, 65-67 

Small Holdings Act (1891), 172; 
(1892), 206 

Soissons, battle of, 250 

Soudan, rebellion of (1881), 152; 
conquest of (1899), 191 

South African War (1899), 193 

Spencer, Lord, 159 

St. Mihiel Salient, 256 

Stratford, Ambassador at Constan- 
tinople, 89 

Suez Canal, shares bought, 137 

Tariff Reform, 218 

Tel-el-Kebir, 151 

Test and Corporation Acts, 51 

Tewfik, Khedive, 150 

Theodore, King of Abyssinia, 109 

"Three F's," 120 

Toryism (1800- 1830), 35, 48 

Trades Boards Act (1909), 204 

Treaty of Paris (1856), 91 

Treaty of Tien-Tsing, 93 

Triple Alliance, 227 

Triple Entente, 227 

Ulster Parliament (1921), 258 
Unkiar Skelesi Treaty (1833), 88 



270 



Index 



Valera, 256 

Venezuelan controversy, 186, 187 

Verdun, battle of, 249 

Versailles Treaty, 253 

Victoria, Queen, 64, 81, 182 

Villeneuve, 29 

Vimy Ridge, battle of, 250 



Wei-hai-Wei, 189 
Wellington, Duke of, 51, 54 
Welsh Disestablishment and Dis- 

endowment Bill (1913), 216, 

218 



Whigs' demand (1816), 45; su- 
premacy, 64 

Wilberforce, William, 66 

William IV, 54, 61, 64 

Wilson, President Woodrow, 239 

Workmen's Compensation Acts 
(1897), 183; (1906), 203 

Wolseley, Lord, 151, 155 

Woman's Suffrage, 219, 220 

World War (1914), 224 

Ypres, battle of, 247, 250 
Zobeir Pasha, 154 



96 8 





v.* 





, A«i^. w .*<», V* c <&&>:-. °*. 




7** f*^ x5 






«* */ •» f. V 



*°o 





°^ JL* • " • •♦ <$». 













^ *> 
*.<* 








£ .1-,. ^ a\ * ... V 




> ^. 



^A^^^V "WW 1 A^*% - 











